Women don't like rain. It resets their faces to the factory settings.
Women don't like rain. It resets their faces to the
factory settings. ;-)
On one occasion while I was visiting my mother in hospital I noticed that her room mate seemed to be grumbling to herself. My
mother confided that.. having been scheduled for surgery the same
day... this woman got up early, spent at least an hour applying
makeup & painting her nails & whatnot, and was informed as soon as
their nurse entered the room that she would have to revert to the factory settings. When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would the doctor know if you were turning blue with
that stuff on?" :-))
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know if she was
turning blue with that stuff on.
or ordered slightly differently...
My mother answered her that with that stuff on, the doctor would
not know if she was turning blue.
i make this distinction because of the question is she turning blue /because/ of the stuff or is the stuff simply hiding the possible blueness...
i make this distinction because of the question is she turning blue
/because/ of the stuff or is the stuff simply hiding the possible
blueness...
Well, in this case we should change the sentence the original sentence, too.
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?" :-))
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the
quotation marks, I wanna remark again that inside of
those marks there is the direct speech. So,
theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
or (as the indirect speech)
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know
if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know
if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
or ordered slightly differently...
My mother answered her that with that stuff on, the
doctor would not know if she was turning blue.
i make this distinction because of the question is she
turning blue /because/ of the stuff or is the stuff
simply hiding the possible blueness...
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+ * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA
(1:153/716)
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?"
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the
quotation marks, I wanna remark again that inside of
those marks there is the direct speech. So,
theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would
the doctor know if you were turning blue with that stuff on?"
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the quotation
marks, I wanna remark again that inside of those marks there is
the direct speech. So, theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you are turning
blue with that stuff on?"
But Ardith's grammar is immaculate and only right for this
hypothetical sitatuation, whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside
of" can make any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make90% of people use informal speech. It makes them not
any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
look too green and blue. ;-)
Futher more
Futher moreSince Alexander so meticulously corrects my typos I will
anticipate him and correct this one myself: furhtermore.
I write:
Futher more
Since Alexander so meticulously corrects my typos I will
anticipate him and correct this one myself: furhtermore.
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?" :-))
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would
the doctor know if you were turning blue with that stuff on?" :-)) <skipped>
In my previous message I neglected to say that when I added commas
to your example & Mark's I was "going by the book". The above is a departure from standard procedure, but I've learned a few things
since I attended school:
1) Although I wasn't happy when a USAian English professor
criticized me for using "too many commas"... and I may err in the
opposite direction now... I got the point. If I'd used commas as
they're generally used in British English there would be three of
them in my example, all serving different purposes. Once I became accustomed to the idea of rationing them I began to see how a
forest of commas may hinder some readers more than it helps. By
shortening the original sentence you made it unnecessary to
prioritize them & determine which one(s) may be omitted without sacrificing clarity. Sometimes that's the quickest & easiest
solution. OTOH I keep asking you about context, and thanks to Anton
I have more to add there... [chuckle].
2) My mother was speaking to a person who was emotionally upset.
I've found in certain situations that regardless of what the
textbook authors advise us to do in order to make our writing more interesting there may be times When it's highly effective to start
with a main clause & continue without pausing. In oral
conversation, not everybody takes turns politely & with some folks
it may be a bit of a challenge to get a word in edgewise. :-)
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on what you
mean).
Formal and informal are two poles with natural language somewhere
in between. Informal language need not mutilate words nor cripple
grammar. Remember, for example, the dialogs in our screen
adaptation of Captain Blood (1991). Do you find them loathsome?
As for "inside/inside of" formally you are right, but there are
many opinions on this account. For instance: [...]
http://tinyurl.com/yxacrj6f
There are more than one opinion on any matter, but there is no
logical justification of either "inside of" or "irregardless" (for
another example). They are mere uneducated distortions by people
who do not care about their language and culture and consequently
never ponder and wonder about the anatomy of words or their
functions in a sentence. But such people shall not decide the
evolution of the language.
IMHO, they are just new words. Like a flash mob, blog, podcast
etc. I don't like them, too.
Correction: I dislike them too, or I don't like them either.
But the main feature of informal speech, AIUI, is making the talk
more funny and humorous. It's like I see a school boy and cite the
Shakespeare' lines:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
...the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining moaning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.
----- The end of the citation -----
Shakespeare is too difficult for me, who has read Tolkien,
E.R.Eddison, Poe, Lovecraft, and even John Bunyan. I feel no rhythm
in this fragment, but see nothing missing save an article
before "snail".
When a person is in a company of friends he never
speaks formally. And he should not to. It is too
loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (dependingIs it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
on what you mean).
Languages follow people, not textbooks. Textbooks follow
languages. ;-)
As for the article I have already discussed here the
similar case, when one prince returned home "smelling
like horse". In other words, English is not very strict.
;)
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks
formally. And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on
what you mean).
Is it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
IMHO what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to
overuse the verb "speak" you could correctly say "he
should not (do so)" or "he ought not to (do so)". :-)
IMHO what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to
overuse the verb "speak" you could correctly say "he
should not (do so)" or "he ought not to (do so)". :-)
No, I proposed only the following amendment:
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks
formally. And he should not, [or] And he ought not to.
and commented on the impropriety of using `to' in place of a verb
from the viewpoint of common sense and general logic. By the way, repetition is not always cacophonic[1]. It is even recognised as
a figure of speech!
Now that have read it again, I think that "the company" is much
better than "a company" (of friends).
____________________
1. as an antonym of `epiphonic'.
___
- Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/6.0) @EEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 116/116 123/0 25 50 150 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757 @EEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 261/38 280/5003 320/219 460/58 @EEN-BY: 640/1321 1384 712/848 3634/0 12 12 15 24 27 50
@ATH: 221/6 1 640/1384 3634/12 153/7715
Uh-huh. But you also gave another example... "I love
you better than I do myself"... in which the verb "do"
replaces the verb "love". Prior to that you & Alexander
had been discussing which words could be left out under
certain circumstances. I was trying to cover both at
once by using parentheses to show that the use of "do
so" or possibly "do that" is optional in my rendition.
:-)
Sorry, folks... operator error. I hadn't wuite
finished yet.... :-(
Looking forward to a copy ready for the typesetter!
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on what you
mean).
Is it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
I agree with Anton that "to" as you used it here doesn't work. IMHO
what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to overuse the
verb "speak" you could correctly say "he should not (do so)" or "he
ought not to (do so)".
No, I proposed only the following amendment:
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not, [or] And he ought not to.
and commented on the impropriety of using!?! to' in place of a verb
from the viewpoint of common sense and general logic. By the way, repetition is not always cacophonic[1]. It is even recognised as a
figure of speech!
Now that have read it again, I think that "the company" is much
better than "a company" (of friends).
I meant something like this:
"Instead of which," I said, "in a month's time I take
the most important examination of my career."
"I should advise you not to." (Ch. Snow)
I.e. the main idea (I take the most important
examination) was replaced by "to", so that to be
shorter.
Not at all, and Dallas Hinton explained it well that in this
phrase!?! horse' is uncountable becauase denotes a substance. In
Shakespeare, however,!?! snail' certainly refers to the whole
individual animal. Observe that Americans use!?! pie'
uncountably, too, e.g.: "We had tea and apple pie".
Horse is a substance? ;)
One of the problems here is that many nouns can be both countable
and uncountable, depending on context. To confuse things
further, "horse" is a street name for cocaine (or at least, used to
be -- dunno if that's still true!)
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup of tea and
a piece of apple pie" (or perhaps several cups and pieces,
depending on greed, appetite, and the host's offerings!).
Now - "horse" in the powder form is uncountable (without a
microscope!) but can be measured in grams (or variants). In the
animal form, a herd of horses is confusing, because while the
number of horses in a herd can be counted but the word "herd" isn't usually. Nonetheless, we might talk about there being a number of
herds of wild horses in the US midWest... and we could count them.
I guess what I'm really saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up
on the concept of countable vs. noncountable -- do what makes sense
and remember that the English language is a hodge-podge of words
and phrases stolen from any other language that will hold still
long enough to be robbed!
Anton has told me that you told me that King Arthas
smelled like horse (without an article) because horse
was a substance. Did you tell it? I don't remember. ;)
In other words, "horse" is equivalent to "perfume". We
could say "smelled like skunk", "smelled like manure",
"smelled like perfume", and so on.
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup
of tea and a piece of apple pie"
Anton has told me that you told me that King Arthas smelled like
horse (without an article) because horse was a substance. Did you
tell it? I don't remember. ;)
I should have quoted Dallas:
In other words, "horse" is equivalent to "perfume". We
could say "smelled like skunk", "smelled like manure",
"smelled like perfume", and so on.
By the way, I have no objections to "smelled of horse" but AS> am nothappy with "smelled like horse" and can't help but AS> want to insert an article after `like'.
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup
of tea and a piece of apple pie"
Again, it is not "a piece of *an* apple pie", because `pie'
(as well as `pizza') is here more natural in its
uncountable, substantive form. A piece of apple pie is like
a glass of water, whereas I had eggs for my dinner and
bisquits and nuts with my after-dinner tea.
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
But Ardith's grammar is immaculate and only right for
this hypothetical sitatuation,
whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make
any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the
south tend to shorten the spelling of words like
"cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to
simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?|different
It is just the American spelling which is differ
from the British/Canadian one.
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the south tend to
shorten the spelling of words like "cheque" and "neighbour", in an
apparent attempt to simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?from the British/Canadian one.
It is just the American spelling which is different
Can you think of any [esp. US] spelling which requires more letters
than the [esp. UK/Can/Aus] equivalent? Offhand, I can't....
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the
south tend to shorten the spelling of words like
"cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to
simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?
It is just the American spelling which is different
from the British/Canadian one.
Can you think of any [esp. US] spelling which requires
more letters than the [esp. UK/Can/Aus] equivalent?
Offhand, I can't....
I am not sure I understand. If they (Americans, your
south neighbours) shorten "neighbour" they got
"neighbor", the American spelling.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/neighbour
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 06:45:03 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,103 |
| Messages: | 146,019 |