Tony Firshman wrote:
Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted?
Argh! See infinity. You can't count the points on a line (finite or
infinite length). They are plural, but not countable.
--
Lau
http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com)
Get a domain from
Laurence Reeves wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted?
Argh! See infinity. You can't count the points on a line (finite or
infinite length). They are plural, but not countable.
Maybe then one should think the other way round.
There can be one
- Original Message -
From: David Tubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
At 10:38 02/06/2006 +0100, you wrote:
Reading through them you might think that
you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops
David Tubbs wrote:
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable,
and went onto my infinity theme.
Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the
picking.
Not my nit.
Laurence Reeves wrote:
David Tubbs wrote:
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable,
and went onto my infinity theme.
Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the
Την Sun, 04 Jun 2006 13:00:43 -0400,ο(η) Tony Firshman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε:
Laurence Reeves wrote:
David Tubbs wrote:
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable,
and went onto my infinity theme.
Phoebus R. Dokos wrote:
Not everything with a plural can be quantified:
See for example waters as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico...
You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix
it with amounts. There is a plural in waters however you cannot say
At 13:21 04/06/2006 -0400, you wrote:
Not everything with a plural can be quantified:
See for example waters as in The waters of the Gulf of Mexico...
You could potentially count their displacement but then you have to prefix
it with amounts. There is a plural in waters however you cannot say
At 10:38 02/06/2006 +0100, you wrote:
Reading through them you might think that
you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops'
Mentioned in the first posts under this heading.
news group, rather than
Ql-users!
Please, please get back on topic!
Cheers
Colin
I am sure you are more than welcome
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:14:19AM +0100, Tony Firshman wrote:
John Taylor wrote:
Lau
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
Eh? 'People' is plural.
Of course, people often use the awful plural 'persons'
Ah, but you can have The
For the last 12 days this list has been dominated by a discussion regarding
English grammar, hardly on topic. Reading through them you might think that
you were on the 'Never Mind the Full Stops' news group, rather than
Ql-users!
Please, please get back on topic!
Cheers
Colin
On Thu, Jun
On 31 May 2006, at 14:29, Laurence Reeves wrote:
Can I go sit quietly in the corner now?
I am sure you are capable of that action. You would know best, so why
ask us?
Or perhaps you mean May I . . .
George
___
QL-Users Mailing List
Morning Lau,
BIG SNIP
(and I used
that that that without qualms
I might be able to do better :
The owner of the Dog And Duck pub wanted a new sign painting and employed a
craftsman to do so. (You can tell how old this joke is, there are no craftsmen
left !)
When done, he went to admire
Lynn Truss missed this one.
Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing
John.
On 1 Jun 2006, at 01:22, Tony Firshman wrote:
Laurence Reeves wrote:
snip
A la TF,
A le TF surely (8-)#
I deplore the loss of meaning specificity that a missed
apostrophe causes
Laurence Reeves writes:
PPS. Tony still hasn't told me whether he'd like to have fewer or less
computable numbers than points in a (mathematical) line.
Id vote for fewer because the words numbers and points represent
discrete objects. The reason it is confusing is that we are mixing up the
John Taylor writes:
Lynn Truss missed this one.
Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing
Shouldnt that be: Lynne Truss? Missed this one.
See E,SL p9
Per
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Per
I don't think so, my daughter has my copy, but where is the
apostrophe in shouldnt?
John.
On 1 Jun 2006, at 10:24, P Witte wrote:
John Taylor writes:
Lynn Truss missed this one.
Get the family to punctuate: Woman without her man is nothing
Shouldnt that be: Lynne Truss? Missed
Not only did the Ancient Greeks develop a great language they understood human
nature quite well. At least if this is an accurate quote/translation:
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they
Την Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:31:04 -0400,ο(η) Bill Cable [EMAIL PROTECTED]
έγραψε:
Not only did the Ancient Greeks develop a great language they understood
human
nature quite well. At least if this is an accurate quote/translation:
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to
PS. (this is a Pre-script, just for variety). I've always liked:
While marking their work, the teacher noted that John had written had,
whereas Jim had had had had. Had had had had the teacher's approval.
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
One very common one now is
Laurence Reeves wrote:
PS. (this is a Pre-script, just for variety).
Shouldn't that be AS: Ante Script?
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Phoebus R. Dokos writes:
I would say that usability defines what is right. The perfect example
would be Greek. Ancient Greek for example had words for almost everything.
Modern Greek doesn't and as a consequence it is a lot more periphrastic
now than ever.
For example an average increase
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness.
The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections.
Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation.
And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you
so.
John Taylor
On 30 May 2006,
Robert Newson wrote:
She is nicer than me and you.
is wrong, it should be:
She is nicer than you and I.
or
She is nicer than I and you.
'Fraid not. Replace nicer with heavier and it becomes obvious that
in the above you almost certainly should have said or not and, and
John Taylor wrote:
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness.
The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections.
Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation.
And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you
so.
And...
John Taylor wrote:
Lau
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
John.
On 31 May 2006, at 13:01, Laurence Reeves wrote:
John Taylor wrote:
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness.
The last few days have seen an
At 13:30 31/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
John.
But do you mean the Pidgeon and bastardisation of English by peoples around
the world or correcting another person's English
--
No virus found in this
George Gwilt wrote:
On 30 May 2006, at 20:49, Tony Firshman wrote:
On 29 May 2006, at 13:16, Tony Firshman wrote:
Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural.
Surely you mean 'You and I are the plural'.
(8-)#
No
Ah. So You and I are not the plural.
You and I is a collective
Laurence Reeves wrote:
Robert Newson wrote:
She is nicer than me and you.
is wrong, it should be:
She is nicer than you and I.
or
She is nicer than I and you.
'Fraid not. Replace nicer with heavier and it becomes obvious that
in the above you almost certainly
John Taylor wrote:
Lau
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
Eh? 'People' is plural.
Of course, people often use the awful plural 'persons'
Tony
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Tubbs wrote:
At 13:30 31/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
John.
But do you mean the Pidgeon and bastardisation of English by peoples around
the world or correcting another person's English
I do of
Laurence Reeves wrote:
snip
A la TF,
A le TF surely (8-)#
I deplore the loss of meaning specificity that a missed
apostrophe causes
Punctuation rules!
Eats shoots and leaves. (Probably, has a diet of both parts of a plant).
Eats shoots, and leaves. (Consumes some young bean plants in a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whilst on the subject, are the angels dancing on the head of my pin male or
female ?
Neuter.
According to my Sunday School (granted many years ago so things may have
changed), onve you die and are elevated to the rank of Angel, you are sexless.
Sounds pretty
George Gwilt wrote:
On 29 May 2006, at 13:16, Tony Firshman wrote:
Ah I see what you mean - You and I is the plural.
Surely you mean 'You and I are the plural'.
(8-)#
No
Tony
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://firshman.co.uk
Robert Newson wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
...
She is nicer than me and you /are/.
Now you see why it's wrong.
Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are.
As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am.
I was referring to the 'correct' She is
Tony Firshman wrote:
...
Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are.
As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am.
I was referring to the 'correct' She is nicer than than you and I (are)
As I thought, but shirley you and I, the subject of the
Robert wrote -
As I thought, but shirley you and I, the subject of the missing/implicit
verb is plural (together as one pronoun: we) and so would use are and
not am?
=
I bet I'm not the only one what would like to meet shirley!
What fun ;)
John in Wales
--
No virus found in this
Robert Newson wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
...
Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are.
As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am.
I was referring to the 'correct' She is nicer than than you and I (are)
As I thought, but shirley you and I, the
Thanks Tony re:
the gnokii software and a serial interface. (http://bryns.org.uk)
===
David wrote -
Whilst on the subject, are the angels dancing on the head of my pin male or
female ?
=
Has it been hissed
That the jist
Of this list
Has been missed?
Whatever happened to
On 27 May 2006, at 18:00, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Except I can't remember who wrote that one originally. Shaw?
Yes GBS didit
George
___
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
Robert Newson writes:
John Taylor wrote:
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less
It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I.
And often wrong:
She is nicer than me and you.
is wrong, it should be:
She is nicer than you and
Robert Newson wrote:
John Taylor wrote:
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less
It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I.
And often wrong:
She is nicer than me and you.
is wrong, it should be:
She is nicer than you
Tony Firshman wrote:
...
She is nicer than me and you /are/.
Now you see why it's wrong.
Indeed, but not completely - it would be I am not I are.
As in She is nicer than you and I am? Surely it's we are not we am.
___
QL-Users Mailing List
On 26 May 2006, at 18:22, Tony Firshman wrote:
As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it
has to,
or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of meaning.
sine die?
George
___
QL-Users Mailing List
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
As I said originally, I don't mind language changing at all - it
has to,
or die like Latin. What I don't like is the dulling down of
meaning.
sine die?
George
Any language where you can spell fish as ghoti cannot possibly be
dull.
gh = f as gh in rough
o=i as o
David Tubbs schreef:
At 00:31 26/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the
subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at
infinity the answer must be less.
OOOps, boobed did not mean that, obviosly fewer ! But
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote:
Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a
straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers
(countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line, or
fewer?
Ah, but this
-
David Gilham
-
The universe is a queer place
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:59:39 +0100
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote:
Secondly, how do
Stephen Usher scripsit::
On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Laurence Reeves wrote:
Secondly, how do you go about comparing the number of points on a
straight line (uncountable) with the number of computable numbers
(countable). Are there less computable numbers than points on a line,
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote:
There is a difference between:
I want less jockey on my horse!
and
I want fewer jockey on my horse!
pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the plural
of jockey is jockeys./pedant ;-)
Steve
--
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Usher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] apostrophes
It would work with fish , though perhaps they (it?) would slip off
the horse.
Yeah, slippery things, fish.. and I've not heard
Stephen Usher wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote:
There is a difference between:
I want less jockey on my horse!
and
I want fewer jockey on my horse!
pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the plural
of jockey is
Tony Firshman wrote:
Stephen Usher wrote:
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 02:32:13PM +0200, J?r?me Grimbert wrote:
There is a difference between:
I want less jockey on my horse!
and
I want fewer jockey on my horse!
pedantYes there is, the first is correct but the second isn't, as the
plural
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less
It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I.
While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be
remembered that English is not a fixed language.
I am always deeply suspicious of people who
John Taylor wrote:
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less
It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I.
While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be
remembered that English is not a fixed language.
I am always deeply
Tony Firshman wrote:
John Taylor wrote:
More can be applied to both quantity and numbers, so why cannot less
It is regular practise now to talk about me and you, not you and I.
While I agree with you on the use of fewer and less, it must be
remembered that English is not a fixed
Laurence Reeves wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
One very common one now is to use 'less' for everything, where 'fewer'
should be used. Less people for instance. The rule is *so* simple.
If one can count the noun (ie discrete items) then it is 'fewer'.
(Surprise, surprise... I do still
At 20:10 25/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
(Surprise, surprise... I do still exist).
Good on yer
Belated thanks and congrat's for Minni
From one of the old Lolworth crowd.
I couldn't resist getting in on this one... for two reasons.
Firstly, there are more good bits in Never Mind the Full Stops
At 00:31 26/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the
subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at
infinity the answer must be less.
OOOps, boobed did not mean that, obviosly fewer ! But curiously still a
lesser
David Tubbs wrote:
Not sure if your question is for real, if it is you have defined the
subject as numeric, since most (if not all) computers throw a wobbly at
infinity the answer must be less.
Not quite, all computers following the IEEE 754 standard (which
includes every PC and Motorola FPU)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought he was a prime something else?
I'm sure we don't know *exactly* what you mean - but I'll bet we can think of a
few choice terms. :o)
Actually, I'm a bit of a prime tw_t myself. Yesterday I managed to use IE
instead of Firefox to view my mails on-line and
Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος) wrote:
Την Mon, 22 May 2006 08:14:11 -0400,ο(η) Robert Newson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε:
P Witte wrote:
David Tubbs writes:
...
Youre welcome
...
Three missing apostrophes (8-)#
...
BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed
P Witte wrote:
David Tubbs writes:
...
Youre welcome
...
Three missing apostrophes (8-)#
...
BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant
information for the benefit of the discerning reader.
Actually, they're not redundant, they represent the missing a from You
Την Mon, 22 May 2006 08:14:11 -0400,ο(η) Robert Newson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] έγραψε:
P Witte wrote:
David Tubbs writes:
...
Youre welcome
...
Three missing apostrophes (8-)#
...
BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant
information for the benefit of the
David Tubbs writes:
Youre welcome
Youre welcome
Youre welcome
Three missing apostrophes (8-)#
Tony
Did you watch never mind the full stops ?
Bit disappointing I thought.
D
I didnt watch it, and quite enjoyed that. Another one I enjoyed not watching
was Grumpy Old Men..
BTW the
Sorry Per,
The riposte was aimed towards the reader who discerned.
At 19:29 21/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
I didnt watch it, and quite enjoyed that. Another one I enjoyed not watching
was Grumpy Old Men..
BTW the apostrophies are not missing, Ive merely removed redundant
information for the
At 23:52 19/05/2006 +0100, you wrote:
Youre welcome
Youre welcome
Youre welcome
Three missing apostrophes (8-)#
Tony
Did you watch never mind the full stops ?
Bit disappointing I thought.
D
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.392 /
67 matches
Mail list logo
