ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

"that of" is possessive, Que -- "your cancer risk is half (the cancer risk) of your father" ... since "that" = "cancer risk"

the second version has two possessives, so it breaks down like "your cancer risk will be half (the cancer risk) of your father's (cancer risk)" -- and abstract likelihoods never get cancer

"Your cancer risk will be half that of your father's (cancer risk.)"

^^ this seems like where the writers must be coming from, but then what is "that of" doing in this sentence anyway? if that were your goal, you could just say "your cancer risk will be half your father's," and only have one possessive

the double possessive would only make sense to me if something else were possessed -- "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's (dog)"

"that" shouldn't even be there

your cancer risk will be half of your father's cancer risk

it's still horrible phrasing and should be rewritten ;)

I think maybe why the first one sounds weird is that this construction is usually phrased as "The cancer risk of Bob is half that of his father." No one would bat an eye at that, I'm guessing, but since we don't say things like "the cancer risk of you," we have to phrase it as "Your cancer risk" and suddenly we expect the "your" to have an obvious parallel on the other side. But it doesn't need one, since "that of" is doing the same work.

Haha yes yes, Que, we are in agreement on that last post! Either you use "that of" as the possessive or you use apostrophe-S as the possessive, but not both!

And yes, Jaymc is looking at this exactly as I am

okay you know that everyone under the sun is going to read "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's" as "your dog's cancer risk will be half that of your father's (cancer risk)"

haha well sure, nobody would leave a grammatically implied "dog" in that sentence, but the example should still make sense

Dogs make for good examples here, actually, because these two both at least make sense:

- Your dog is bigger than your father's
- Your dog is bigger than that of your father

But it would make no sense to say:

- Your dog is bigger than that of your father's

My instinct tells me to agree with Dan, but if I flip the sentence around completely, "You father's cancer risk is double that of yours" makes no sense at all, and I conclude that it has to be " . . . of you." Which reads poorly, and leads me to believe this is a bad sentence. Just express it as an equation: "Your cancer risk = 2x your dad's cancer risk."

there are much better ways to phrase it, though, is what i am saying:

Scruffy is bigger than Nabisco Junior.

etc

ultimately I agree with Que; if the "correct" construction still reads so clunkily, it's time to reword the whole sentence

that is not an option

But it would make no sense to say:

Your dog is bigger than that of your father's

I almost don't want to mention this because I agree with you, but I think we have talked on this thread before about the weird redundancy within perfectly acceptable phrases like "this friend of my dad's."

haha anyway I'm not asking because I think can do anything about it -- if lawyers and the government are fine with something, what do I care -- but just to get a sense of the logic behind the second choice

(which I'm still not sure I see, but I'm reassured to see that the second one does seem preferable to some people, and it doesn't read as a horrible error)

xpost - true, J, that's probably bearing on this one!

that is not an option

why not

My brother just asked me why the formulation 'Anybody can't do that' is wrong. I said, well, it should be 'Not anybody can do that' but he said, yes, i know, but why is it wrong.

Pesky warmint.

Anyway, I should know but I don't. When something sounds incredibly cackhanded there's usually something awry - what is it?

I've never been able to appreciate how English allows you to push a negative past a quantifier w/o flipping it.

'Anybody can't do that' -- 'Not anybody can do that'

Even if you throw out a lot of normal expectations of syntax, these would mean different things, wouldn't they? The first one seems to say that any given person cannot do it, while the second one seems to say that not just anyone can do it (but talented people or professionals can).

Well, I did consider 'Nobody can do that' but that was wrong in a different way really, so went for the second, which I think is more nearly equivalent. It is a problem of nuance (hence Orwell going on rather about double negatives getting it somewhat wrong in The Essay We Are Not Allowed to Mention).

I still think 'anybody can't do that' is ugly to the point of being unusable, partly because it is so runic.

Haha this actually might be a very good layman's explanation of why it's wrong, without having to go into rules about grammar and syntax -- I really can't tell what it means. I honestly wouldn't have thought the thrust of it was "not just anyone can do that," especially written. (Though I can imagine how you'd say it in a way that makes it clear.)

"I couldn't resist talking about it."

In this case, is "talking" a gerundive nominalization, or just your usual happy present participle?

"Off License" or "Off Licence"

?

Licence

you Brit sunts

Fusk you

"I couldn't resist talking about it."

It's a gerund, as far as I understand it.

While I'm here ... if in our house style, we say south-east, north-west etc, should I hyphenate south-central, or should I say "central southern" instead, maybe? Used adjectivally, as in south central Oman.

It always sounds weird to me.

To remember the difference between 'license' and 'licence', you must devise a device.

I think I'd go for just southern Oman, JTS.

I'd advise getting some advice on that xp

I suggest looking at a map. 'Southern central' is not the same as 'central southern', obviously.

This thread always fills me with surprice.

"I couldn't resist talking about it."

I agree with Mr Smith. If you can replace the -ing word with a noun then it's probably a gerund (e.g. "I couldn't resist the chocolate cake").

I suggest looking at a map. 'Southern central' is not the same as 'central southern', obviously.

Yes. But would either of those (depending) be better than south central, or south-central? This started out as a hyphenation query, really.

My personal preference would be for 'southern central' or 'central southern', depending on the actual geographical location. For some reason the hyphenated 'north-west' or 'south-west' doesn't carry over well to anything involving 'central'. Maybe that's just me, and/or a British vs American bias. It's also a lot to do with me not knowing what it means, ie I'm not sure if 'south-central' is supposed to mean 'in the southern portion of the central region', or 'somewhere broadly within the larger central AND southern region' (the latter being analagous to 'north-west' or 'south-east' etc.).

'Southern central' is not the same as 'central southern', obviously.

haha these things would be separated by "northern southern?"

Many guests on Mr. Letterman’s show, notably Julia Roberts, have tweaked him about his reluctance to marry. Mr. Letterman had sworn off marriage after he and his first wife Michelle Cook, were divorced in 1977.

From the NY Times no less. Tsk.

the comma right? im sick as fuck the rest seems ok

Is it

fish ‘n’ chips

or

fish ’n’ chips

? (note open/close quotes)

or

fish ‘n‘ chips

not that one.

s/b fish ’n’ chips -- each represents contraction of letter(s)

gone fish'n'

mare's tails or mares' tails? (when referring to the cloud formation)

mare's tails because you're pluralizing the phrase mare's tail, not pluralizing the mare.

Good question. Webster's 11th lists both as acceptable.

thanks

Does people still care about the difference between further and farther? Hadn't even thought about it until the word farther came up in a children's book, looking all weird.

http://www.lessontutor.com/eesfarther.html

DO people.

Grief.