ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

'His artificial leg prevented him from jumping.'What the FUCK is the word 'from' doing there??

this is the same shit that prevents y'all from understanding that "different to" is simply rong.

Umm I really don't think this argument is necessary, the only thing that quoted bit of mine asserted is that when we start talking about Brit vs. American usage there kinda tend to be British people around and it tends to become a 600-post long thing, which I'm not sure anyone here would dispute and seems to be happening anyway even despite the absence of a bunch of British folk

xpost "His artificial leg prevented HIS jumping" is how we would phrase that if we wanted to excise the "from," since "his jumping" can function as a noun and "him jumping" does not function that way for us. Doesn't much matter, I suppose. Although I think we preserve the preposition in that role because, umm, in a great deal of cases it quite clearly matters, as British usage recognizes in the cases where its used: i.e., we'll both say cheese is different FROM/TO milk, because it means something else to say "it's different milk." (Permit me a moment of American snark in noting that at least we have decided on which preposition goes with "different.")

But so I actually think a lot of US/UK usage divides come down to something along those lines -- e.g., if something OFTEN has a function we will include it in a logical system and use it, whereas the UK seems more likely to omit something except when its function is significant. Like serial commas, which the UK uses WHEN they're important, and we use BECAUSE they're important, if that makes sense. Like we'll ADOPT a rule, and the UK will APPLY a rule when needed.

what nabisco said

Although I think we preserve the preposition in that role because, umm, in a great deal of cases it quite clearly matters

I think in this specific situation, it depends on whether you want to emphasize "him" or "jumping" as the object of "prevented."

Well it prevented HIM from jumping, it didn't prevent jumping in the abstract. But you see that omission in Brit English plenty and it's fairly clear and strikes my American ears as a nice bit of regional color, so I don't much care about it...

You just don't know the power of that artificial leg.

those are some sensitive muggers

Well it prevented HIM from jumping, it didn't prevent jumping in the abstract.

It's more like whether it prevented HIM from jumping vs. it prevented him from JUMPING (i.e., "his jumping").

To respond to your point, nabisco: What you're calling 'UK usage' and 'Brit English' is in fact what most of the world uses. That's the point I was making. Anyway, carry on.

What you're calling 'UK usage' and 'Brit English' is in fact what most of the world uses

RONG

1. That is such a tiresomely pedantic point that I'm tempted to respond to it by pointing out that "most of the world" does not use English at all

2. Part of what makes it tiresomely pedantic is that I'm fairly sure you will never in your life refer to British usage as "British / Australian / New Zealand / some Indian / Nigerian / Falklands / ... and on and on and on" usage because IT'D TAKE FOREVER (and anyway each of those places have their own variances)

3. The main part of what makes it tiresomely pedantic is that it's called British usage because this alleged "most of the world" that uses it was colonized by Britain, in about the same way that Americans like me use the "English" language despite totally not living in England

Haha I honestly don't know if they use serial commas in Liberia or the Phillippines

It's not tiresomely pedantic at all, but you make good points.

Speaking of pedantry, by 'most of the world' obviously I mean most of the world in which English is the primary language. Various countries that were protected/invaded/colonised by the US use US English, e.g. The Philippines, but generally English takes a back seat in such places anyway.

This will all be meaningless within a few generations, really -- I'm sure by then we'll be talking about British usage, American usage, and Indian usage

Ahahahahaha. I love how Indian English has created new words that make perfect grammatical sense (e.g. upgradation) but sound enormously out of place to us.

conceived of during

"This link appears broken" aargghh

Is this actually wrong or is my hatred misdirected?

"He is likely still at home" aaarrgh again.

These are total amerkin-isms, right?

Standard American would be "This link appears to be broken" and, in most American speech, "He is most likely still at home"

Actually, for the second one, there are big parts of the country where people would do that, in semi-colloquial speech and writing -- "He's likely still at home," sure

he is probably at home

i don't think i would ever say "likely," though i use it in writing

"likely" in that sense, that is

It's weird to think about fixed rules for that first one: the norm in that case would be to say "it appears TO BE broken" (or "it LOOKS broken"), but depending on the adjective, it's easy to imagine someone omitting "to be" and saying, e.g., "it appears rusted"

hahaha

- It appears, rusted.
- His leg prevented him, jumping.

Hear that? It was my brain exploding.

Actually that same problem exists to a lesser extent with "it appears to be, rusted"

omitting "to be" is a scottishism - "this shirt needs ironed".

They do that lots of places in the US, too!

Actually that same problem exists to a lesser extent with "it appears to be, rusted"

LOVE SHACK, BABY...

the train seems late

he wants stabbing

oh yeah, you pronounce it "shock," rite?

'shack'

"I'm going to check my facebook"

"I'm going to check facebook"

?? I always say the first but I think it might be odd?

i don't think it matters, does it? it's a question of semantics. (number of times i've used that as a get-out: 2,430,431.)

well, none of it really matters, silly!

I just thought I'd raise the question here, rather than start a poll innit

I'm going to check Facebook / I'm going to check MY Facebook PAGE / (ACCOUNT)

... would seem like the fussy technical thing, but yeah, I can't imagine this mattering, and I can't imagine people using Facebook long enough for anyone outside of the marketing division to be remotely bothered about whether you have "a Facebook" or "a Facebook page/account"

Although I do feel like I've seen this raised with "MySpace," because it has MY in it, therefore it's easy to think of yourself as having "a MySpace" and not "a MySpace account"

So umm hahaha I think the popular logic might be that Facebook is a collective BOOK on which you have a "page," but MySpace is yours, it's your MySpace, not an account on Everyone'sSpace

"I'm going to check my Facepage" is correct.

well, none of it really matters, silly!

this should be the board description for ILX. or life.

ok here's one. if you're using the word "then" to mean "former," but the title is two words, where do hyphens go? "as suggested by his then law clerk william rehnquist." original says "then-law clerk" but i think that's wrong. it has to be either no hyphens or "then-law-clerk," doesn't it? can't find it in chicago manual.

I would go with zero hyphens here, unless you are required to diagram the sentence.

Or else rephrase it to eliminate the English-teacher-nip.

but i think that's wrong. it has to be either no hyphens or "then-law-clerk," doesn't it?

why? could you say then-clerk?

or just 'clerk'?

I don't understand why "law clerk" would have a hypen? Maybe I'm not thinking about it right, but "then-law clerk" seems reasonable to me.

No hyphen. In that case "then" functions as a simple adjective, just like "former." You would only use a hyphen if it were something like "his then-liberal law clerk William Rehnquist."

I mean, I wouldn't hyphenate "state cop" or "baseball player" or "English teacher" so I don't see the point....

Or: "as suggested by William Rehnquist, his law clerk at the time."

I think the confusion here is that "then law clerk" looks like an adjectival phrase that modifies the noun William Rehnquist (in which case hyphenating the whole thing seems useful), but it's not: "law clerk" is the noun and "William Rehnquist" is an appositive.