Dusty Bottoms: What does that mean, in-famous?
Ned Nederlander: Oh, Dusty. In-famous is when you're MORE than famous. This man El Guapo, he's not just famous, he's IN-famous. Lucky Day: 100,000 pesos to perform with this El Guapo, who's probably the biggest actor to come out of Mexico!
Dusty Bottoms: Wow, in-famous? In-famous?
― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:17 (seventeen years ago) link
Main Entry: in-1 : in : within : into : toward : on2 : 1en-
Main Entry: en-1 : put into or onto : cover with : go into or onto -- in verbs formed from nouns
― c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 28 September 2006 17:33 (seventeen years ago) link
Neu! Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.
Neu!, Britney Spears, Smoosh and Edith Piaf.
― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:15 (seventeen years ago) link
― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:25 (seventeen years ago) link
also to avoid confusion with nu britney spears.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 October 2006 03:58 (seventeen years ago) link
(also, at first i thought neu! britney might be kind of awesome but then i realized it really would not)
― rrrobyn, the situation (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 October 2006 14:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maf54 (plsmith), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― c('°c) (Leee), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― ledge (ledge), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:49 (seventeen years ago) link
This is my first foray onto this thread, so be kind.
I keep getting sentences like this at work:
Although much of the NOC's plans are devoted to oil, ...
And the count/non-count usage of much/many is troubling me. Obviously it's grammatically wrong, because the NOC's plans are plural, so we shouldn't use much. However,it would be misleading to use many, because they don't have a bunch of different plans, some of which are devoted to oil. Something like
Although much of the content of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...
would be correct, it sounds terrible. Any ideas? Or just let it slide?
ps Pity me having to sub reports about the Libyan oil industry. Sigh.
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:48 (seventeen years ago) link
I must edit my own posts on this thread of all threads!
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:50 (seventeen years ago) link
Or avoid the issue by using "a lot"
― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:03 (seventeen years ago) link
Lets substitute 'cakes'. (These are stupid artificial examples. Can't think of anything better)
Much of the cake was eaten. YES. Many of the cakes were eaten. YES.
Much of the cakes were eaten? NO. (And a lot can stand in for either, but the meaning changes depending on whether it's a plural or not)
You see my problem?
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:08 (seventeen years ago) link
You don't use a full stop after most abbreviations (in our house style anyway) because people aren't cretins. I know Mr is an abbreviation. No. gets one because you don't have to be a cretin to get it confused with no, the opposite of yes. Nos doesn't get one because nos is obviously the abbreviation for numbers and not something else.
Sense trumps consistency.
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:12 (seventeen years ago) link
Not really...
Berlin and Hamburg were bombed during the war. Much of these two cities was destroyed.
That's acceptable isn't it? In which case "much of NOC's plans" is also acceptable (and semantically different from "many of NOC's plans")
― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:21 (seventeen years ago) link
That is OK. But you've used a singular verb. In my case that would mean changing it to
Although much of the NOC's plans is devoted to oil, ...
which is horrible. I lack the wit to explain why your example works, though. Anyone else?
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:25 (seventeen years ago) link
― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:26 (seventeen years ago) link
A number of people were gathered
― Revivalist (Revivalist), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:31 (seventeen years ago) link
Thanks.
(I am interested in the underlying grammar of this, though, if anyone else is still awake.)
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:32 (seventeen years ago) link
I suppose 'a number' is acting as a collective noun there, though.
I think much/many is different.
― Jamie T Smith (Jamie T Smith), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:35 (seventeen years ago) link
Much of these two cities was destroyed.
There's an implied noun after much, IMO, e.g. "Much architecture of these two cities etc." or something similar, because the cities themselves weren't destroyed, but something in them was.
How about "most" instead of "much" in your NOC example, which I read as being a relative majority issue?
― c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 15:49 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 17 October 2006 17:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:39 (seventeen years ago) link
meanwhile, here's the copyediting story of the week.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 25 October 2006 06:54 (seventeen years ago) link
― Winterland (winterland), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:23 (seventeen years ago) link
― ledge (ledge), Friday, 27 October 2006 12:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― surfer_stone_rosa (surfer_stone_rosa), Friday, 27 October 2006 15:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:06 (seventeen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 20:56 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:11 (seventeen years ago) link
(Ha, although I think we all get snobby on this topic when it comes to whatever we personally do: I am that way people describing themselves as "writers.")
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:22 (seventeen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― Maria :D (Maria D.), Friday, 12 January 2007 03:57 (seventeen years ago) link
It makes more sense for a longer event with many bands, especially something like All Tomorrow's Parties where it's a specific artist's vision of what's teh hotness in music at the moment.
― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 12 January 2007 04:57 (seventeen years ago) link
Why? If you book a night of five bands, surely you then book a weekend of them, too?
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 10:44 (seventeen years ago) link
So: Messrs Schroeder's horse.
― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:03 (seventeen years ago) link
― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Friday, 12 January 2007 11:31 (seventeen years ago) link