Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Mr_S on October 14, 2011, 09:52:43 am
-
Unrelated to photography (but still allowed in this section I read!) but It's important that I get this right. I have a design that I'm doing currently and am unsure if I need an apostrophe or not in the text.
I have a line which for example reads "Ikeas top of the line..."
Am I right in thinking I don't need an apostrophe anywhere in the word Ikea?
Many thanks!
-
I have a line which for example reads "Ikeas top of the line..."
Am I right in thinking I don't need an apostrophe anywhere in the word Ikea?
You do need an apostrophe: “Ikea's top of the line…”
Depending on the rest of the sentence, it's either a contraction for “Ikea is,” in which case it needs an apostrophe, or a possessive like “Ikea's top-of-the-line furniture,” which likewise needs an apostrophe. “Ikeas” without an apostrophe would be a plural.
(BTW, I think the company spells it in all caps — IKEA — but I'm not positive about that.)
-
Ah excellent - thanks for that. It's not for Ikea but it applies to another company. Thanks for your help!
-
Not to muddy the waters but apostrophe use for companies seem to play by controversial rules: http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/402/402files/apostrophe.html.
-
Check to see if Ikea is trademarked or copyrighted. There is likely guidance on how to use and display it. Particularly if this is not for personal use.
-
Not to muddy the waters but apostrophe use for companies seem to play by controversial rules: http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/402/402files/apostrophe.html.
There are no muddy waters at all: randomly dropping apostrophes is simply incorrect. (Just because many companies do it doesn't make it correct; it just makes many companies incorrect.)
While I do think the formation of an "Apostrophe Protection Society" is a bit on the daft side ( (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif) ), on the link you provided the president of this society, John Richards, made his opinion crystal-clear: "Many corporations have started to drop the apostrophe, arguing that it looks better that way. It amounts to a deliberate corporate abuse of the English language and sets a very bad example to schoolchildren."
In other words, just because a small group transgresses the rules does not make that small group right in doing so. It means only that there is a small group of lazy, sloppy users of the language. For that matter, I would estimate that at least 70% of the people who use the internet don't even bother to use capital letters anymore ... but does that make failing to use capital letters "right" now too? No, it sure doesn't. It just makes those many people who fail to use capital letters lazy and sloppy also.
Jack
.
-
+1, Jack. We use language to think, and degradation of language leads to degradation of thought, especially the precision of thought. The effects of language sloppiness are all around us nowadays. It would be interesting to do a research paper on the extent to which language degradation has contributed to the Western world's economic slump. Hey, anybody out there looking for a subject for a Ph D thesis?
-
As usual, I am here to provide a humorous distraction to your serious debate, gentlemen ;)
An English professor writes on the blackboard the following sentence:
"Woman without her man is nothing"
and asks the class to suggest a proper punctuation. The male part of the class comes up with the following:
"Woman, without her man, is nothing"
The female part of the class, however, had this to say:
"Woman: without her, man is nothing"
-
Interestingly, they're both right.
-
+1, Jack. We use language to think, and degradation of language leads to degradation of thought, especially the precision of thought. The effects of language sloppiness are all around us nowadays. It would be interesting to do a research paper on the extent to which language degradation has contributed to the Western world's economic slump. Hey, anybody out there looking for a subject for a Ph D thesis?
This may be a first, for me: I am in total agreement with Jack and Russ! And I'll throw in Slobodan, too.
Capitalization and correct punctuation add clarity and precision to communication.
Down with improper u'se of apo'strophe's!!!
Eric
-
that which is is that which is not is not is that it it is
That which is, is. That which is not, is not. Is that it? It is.
One more for you, Slobodan!
Mike.
And for the OP, yes, apostrophes go where something is possessive. or for something like it is -> it's, while its, like his or hers doesn't have one. Where things get tricky is where there's an s on the end, like Moses. Something belonging to Moses is either Moses' or Moses's; technically both are correct, but the former is most often used.
-
There is also a school of thought that only people can possess things, but it is not widely adhered to. We often hear/see "the home's ambience" where some would insist on "the ambience of the home".
There is formal writing and speech, there is informal writing and speech, there is advertising, there are web forums, etc., it's impossible to come up with general rules. Context is important, but in the OP's case, most people would insist on an apostrophe and so would I.
-
There is also a school of thought that only people can possess things, but it is not widely adhered to. We often hear/see "the home's ambience" where some would insist on "the ambience of the home".
Robert, I would say this "school of thought" needs to be educated (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
So only humans can possess things? What kind of anthropocentric nonsense is this? Are we now supposed to write, "The monkeys banana," and drop the apostrophe, because some pale intellectual who's never set foot in a jungle postulates that monkeys really "can't possess" bananas? Please ::)
Oh, and as far as "the ambience of the home" goes, pick up a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style, as these old curmudgeons would crack a ruler over your knuckles for suggesting anyone should write in the passive voice. "The home's ambience" is better and more vigorous.
There is formal writing and speech, there is informal writing and speech, there is advertising, there are web forums, etc., it's impossible to come up with general rules.
I disagree with this effort to categorize various forms of laziness.
To my way of thinking, there is a much simpler way to categorize speaking and writing than trying to divide-up everything into arbitrary groups. It basically boils down to this: some people make an effort to speak and write correctly, while most people don't, and that's pretty much it. "Informal speech" is merely a term we use to describe our own laziness when we don't try as hard to speak well as we would in a more formal setting. One should not try to dignify the sloppiness of informal speech by calling it "correct within its context"; rather, informal speech is merely the causal, sloppy speaking we do when we're not trying so hard to be formal.
Context is important, but in the OP's case, most people would insist on an apostrophe and so would I.
Agreed. A company advertising its own sloppiness and illiteracy isn't a good way to sell products or services.
Jack
.
-
Clear conveyance of meaning is enough.
Talk with a garbage recycler from the dumps of Guatemala City for a while.
Soon I realized why he laughed so hard the first time I called him dumb as a stump...
-
A company advertising its own sloppiness and illiteracy isn't a good way to sell products or services.
To be strictly accurate, that sentence should read "A company's advertising..." (since "advertising" is a gerund and hence possessed by the company, which rather makes Jacks' earlier point).
And Rocco, your first sentence is obviously true; but for an example of how incorrect punctuation can obscure meaning, and be terribly expensive, see here (http://blogs.ics.ie/itlaw/2007/02/05/the-costly-comma-contract-punctuation-lessons-from-canada/).
Jeremy
-
To be strictly accurate, that sentence should read "A company's advertising..." (since "advertising" is a gerund and hence possessed by the company, which rather makes Jacks' earlier point).
And Rocco, your first sentence is obviously true; but for an example of how incorrect punctuation can obscure meaning, and be terribly expensive, see here (http://blogs.ics.ie/itlaw/2007/02/05/the-costly-comma-contract-punctuation-lessons-from-canada/).
Jeremy
Correction: Jack's earlier point ;)
.
-
You folks arguing that there is only one, absolute, set of rules for the written language are the same folks who strictly abide by the rule of thirds, always make sure the action is going into the frame, and level the horizon mathematically to three decimal places.
-
To be strictly accurate, that sentence should read "A company's advertising..." (since "advertising" is a gerund and hence possessed by the company, which rather makes Jacks' earlier point).
Regarding this other matter, Jeremy, I do not believe the word "advertising" is a gerund in the sentence I used. Gerunds all end in "ing," true, but so too do all present participles.
Gerunds are verbs ening in "ing" which function as nouns, subjects, or objects--neither of which was true for the way I used the word. The word "advertising" can be a gerund, if it is used as a noun, but I used it as an action verb within the context of my original sentence.
Therefore, the word "advertising" was a present participle in my sentence.
Jack
.
-
Guys, please be aware that Jack is an expert in macrophotography, and apparently all other micro things, so no mistake of yours is too small to avoid his scrutiny and not... ahhmm... blow it out of proportion ;D
-
You folks arguing that there is only one, absolute, set of rules for the written language are the same folks who strictly abide by the rule of thirds, always make sure the action is going into the frame, and level the horizon mathematically to three decimal places.
Oh... you mean we were supposed to be taking this seriously? ::)
Mike.
-
...I disagree with this effort to categorize various forms of laziness.
To my way of thinking, there is a much simpler way to categorize speaking and writing than trying to divide-up everything into arbitrary groups. It basically boils down to this: some people make an effort to speak and write correctly, while most people don't, and that's pretty much it. "Informal speech" is merely a term we use to describe our own laziness when we don't try as hard to speak well as we would in a more formal setting. One should not try to dignify the sloppiness of informal speech by calling it "correct within its context"; rather, informal speech is merely the causal, sloppy speaking we do when we're not trying so hard to be formal...
That's so arbitrary.
Parsimony, especially with words, is a virtue. I would rather read 'incorrect' text that gets to the point than 'correct' text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
-
That's so arbitrary.
Parsimony, especially with words, is a virtue. I would rather read 'incorrect' text that gets to the point than 'correct' text that goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
In keeping with your own adherence to parsimony, wouldn't "on and on" have sufficed?
What I said was not arbitrary either, it was accurate, and the rendering of the point was pretty brief actually. Are you so lazy that you can't read 3-4 lines of text without crying boo-hoo? (BTW, if you dislike reading wasted words, I suggest you avoid reading Descartes ;D ).
Cheers,
Jack
.
-
Robert, I would say this "school of thought" needs to be educated (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
In the interests of terseness, perhaps you should have said "thought's school." :D
And let us not forget the wisdom of that great philosopher, Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master; thats all.
Eric
-
Bravo Eric, a tip of the hat to you (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
-
>>> In keeping with your own adherence to parsimony, wouldn't "on and on" have sufficed?
Uh huh. See what I mean?
>> What I said was not arbitrary
Yes it was.
-
Uh huh. See what I mean?
Yes it was.
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/jackoff.gif)
(Was that parsimonious enough for you?)
.
-
Regarding this other matter, Jeremy, I do not believe the word "advertising" is a gerund in the sentence I used.
...
Therefore, the word "advertising" was a present participle in my sentence.
No, it wasn't. Still, as long as you believe that you're right, nothing else matters, does it?
Oh... you mean we were supposed to be taking this seriously? ::)
Dear God, I hope not! Grammar's fun, that's all.
Jeremy
-
Bravo Eric, a tip of the hat to you (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
.
The hat's tip?
And for Jeremy I was going to make a comment about my Grammar's, but both of them has been ded for menny year's. :(
-
...Grammar's, but both of them has been ded for menny year's. :(
3y3 c4n't und3r5t4nd 4 w0rd U wr0t3
-
The hat's tip?
Now look here, Eric: the first time you got me, no doubt, but I feel this second catch of yours was unfair because I was speaking "informally" using a colloquialism (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Bravo again!
Jack
.
-
Unrelated to photography (but still allowed in this section I read!) but It's important that I get this right. I have a design that I'm doing currently and am unsure if I need an apostrophe or not in the text.
I have a line which for example reads "Ikeas top of the line..."
Am I right in thinking I don't need an apostrophe anywhere in the word Ikea?
Many thanks!
You most certainly do need an apostrophe, Ikea's. It's a possessive, and the apostrophe is not optional. There's no room for debate on this one.
-
... I have a line which for example reads "Ikeas top of the line..."
Am I right in thinking I don't need an apostrophe anywhere in the word Ikea?...
Well... Strictly speaking, you are right, you do not need an apostrophe "anywhere in the word Ikea"... but you do need it outside the word, i.e., Ikea's.
P.S. I assume the level of the debate so far allows me this level of pedantry? ;)
-
Well... Strictly speaking, you are right, you do not need an apostrophe "anywhere in the word Ikea"... but you do need it outside the word, i.e., Ikea's.
P.S. I assume the level of the debate so far allows me this level of pedantry? ;)
Absolutely!
Of course the line in question must now read, "Ikea's line's top" instead of "Ikeas top of the line." Or, of course, "Ikeas' lines' tops" in the case of multiple Ikeas with separate lines. ::)
-
Well... Strictly speaking, you are right, you do not need an apostrophe "anywhere in the word Ikea"... but you do need it outside the word, i.e., Ikea's.
P.S. I assume the level of the debate so far allows me this level of pedantry? ;)
"allows"? It's mandatory! Congratulations.
Jeremy
-
Wow - a mini debate...! Interesting reading and thanks again.
Just to add to one of the earlier comments about the degradation of language - I think one of the biggest offenders must surely be the humble sms text message. It's far too easy to knock out an abomination of a sentence, and while I'm no master of the language, I'll always take the time to put a capital letter, space after a comma, capital I etc etc.. ;D
-
Gerunds are verbs ening in "ing"
Misspelling, especially in light of the availability of a spell check function provided automatically in all posts, is very lazy. ;D
-
Jack would you describe yourself as an articulate troll or an articulated troll? ;) ;D
-
Misspelling, especially in light of the availability of a spell check function provided automatically in all posts, is very lazy. ;D
"Now that is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."
~ Sir Winston Churchill
-
"Now that is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."
~ Sir Winston Churchill
-In one of his famous drunken stupors?
But back to RR's point (I think it was RR) that only humans can possess things; I think the more accurate way of putting it would be that only live beings can possess. Inanimate objects or things do not have the power of possession. Hence, Ikea (or IKEA) cannot possess and using the possessive form would be incorrect. ::) :P ;D
Here's another favourite (or favorite for the Philistines in the group): Using 'that' to describe a person. A person is a who, not a that. That refers to things or objects or non-human live entities (e.g., dogs). Who refers to people. Conversely, using who to refer to things or objects (i.e., The company whose policies..... ) is equally incorrect and galling. :-* :o
-
"Hence, Ikea (or IKEA) cannot possess and using the possessive form would be incorrect."
Oh ? Just try walking out of the store with one of their items and see how possessive they are. ;D
-
"Hence, Ikea (or IKEA) cannot possess and using the possessive form would be incorrect."
Oh ? Just try walking out of the store with one of their items and see how possessive they are. ;D
;D
-
... only live beings can possess. Inanimate objects or things do not have the power of possession. Hence, Ikea (or IKEA) cannot possess...
I do not know for grammar purposes, but for legal and political purposes, corporations are considered people ;)
-
"Now that is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I shall not put."
~ Sir Winston Churchill
Jack, The actual quote was "offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put," but there's some doubt whether or not Winston actually wrote this. By the way, note that he said "will" not "shall." Do you know why?
-
Jack, The actual quote was "offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put," but there's some doubt whether or not Winston actually wrote this. By the way, note that he said "will" not "shall." Do you know why?
The British are stickier on the use of 'shall' and 'will'. In British grammar, 'shall' is used to express futurity in the first person whereas 'will' is used to express futurity in the second or third person. 'Shall' is also used in the British lexicon to connote a greater sense of determination on the part of the speaker or writer. In N.A., 'will' is used nearly universally and 'shall' has pretty much been tossed onto the grammatical scrap heap except in certain areas such as legalese. More's the pity.
I do not know for grammar purposes, but for legal and political purposes, corporations are considered people ;)
I wasn't intending a legal definition. What the law defines rarely has relevance to reality. As for politics, can corporations vote? Nope. Ergo not people for political purposes either. And for political contributions, I believe personal and corporate contributions are defined separately. ;D
-
Exactly, Bob. When Churchill wrote (or didn't write) that, "will" was the emphatic form both in England and in the United States. Since then we've gotten a lot sloppier. For instance, nowadays people tend to use "notorious" in place of "famous." Here in Colorado Springs there's even a plaque beneath a large sculpture of a generous farmer, who used to give away pumpkins to all the local kids at Holloween, that says he's "notorious." Most of the officers' efficiency reports I used to review in the Air Force would use "enormity" without a clue to the word's nasty connotations. Churchill understood the difference between the word "persistence" and the word "perseverance." Nowadays even my online dictionary doesn't know the difference. And we've reached the point, in the United States at least, where nobody Jack's age seems to know the difference between the verb "to lie" and the verb "to lay."
-
Jack, The actual quote was "offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put," but there's some doubt whether or not Winston actually wrote this. By the way, note that he said "will" not "shall." Do you know why?
Good point. Note the difference between
I will drown and no-one shall save me
and
I shall drown and no-one will save me
Jeremy
-
-In one of his famous drunken stupors?
No, if memory serves, Churchill said this in response to a student who corrected him for ending one of his sentences with a preposition.
But back to RR's point (I think it was RR) that only humans can possess things; I think the more accurate way of putting it would be that only live beings can possess. Inanimate objects or things do not have the power of possession. Hence, Ikea (or IKEA) cannot possess and using the possessive form would be incorrect. ::) :P ;D
I could live with this premise actually, in the sense that a house or a hat cannot actively "possess" things, for examples.
However, I would strongly disagree with your premise that Ikea is not a "being." In point of fact, Ikea represents a collection of beings, who do own and possess many things, as degrub so cleverly illustrated with his refutation of your faulty premise.
Here's another favourite (or favorite for the Philistines in the group): Using 'that' to describe a person. A person is a who, not a that. That refers to things or objects or non-human live entities (e.g., dogs). Who refers to people. Conversely, using who to refer to things or objects (i.e., The company whose policies..... ) is equally incorrect and galling. :-* :o
I agree and disagree here too.
I agree that humans should be referred to as "who," and objects as "that"; however, once again a company represents a collection of human beings ...
Jack
.
-
Jack, The actual quote was "offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put," but there's some doubt whether or not Winston actually wrote this. By the way, note that he said "will" not "shall." Do you know why?
Right and wrong.
Winston did use the word "will" (not "shall" as I originally wrote).
However, Winston did not write this, I believe he said this in the middle of a speech to a student body. During his delivery, one of the students pointed out that Winston just ended his sentence with a preposition, to which Winston retorted, "That is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."
At least that is how I remember the tale ...
Jack
.
-
I do not know for grammar purposes, but for legal and political purposes, corporations are considered people ;)
Exactly right, and that is because corporations represent people who can and do own (possess) many things.
Jack
-
... where nobody Jack's age seems to know the difference between the verb "to lie" and the verb "to lay."
Your assumption that I do not know the difference is in err ...
A person lays his baby down to rest, and then he lies down to rest himself.
Jack
.
-
Sorry, Jack, but you illustrated my point over in User Critiques, in your post: "The Nymph and the Queen."
And chickens lay eggs.
-
Sorry, Jack, but you illustrated my point over in User Critiques, in your post: "The Nymph and the Queen."
And chickens lay eggs.
Whatever Russ. I guess because you failed to have subject-verb agreement in one of your sentences this means that you really don't know the difference either then, right?
Are you sure you want to commit to the posit that mistakes = lack of knowledge in all cases ... or could this be yet another mistake on your part? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/shocked.gif)
You're beginning to prove that humans lay eggs also (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
Are you really debating whether or not non-living things can possess?
Would you write, "The suns rays" or "The sun's rays"? Would you write, "The chairs legs" or "The chair's legs"?
IKEA can possess attributes or qualities in the same manner as the sun or a chair, such that expression in English requires a possessive apostrophe.
-
Exactly right, and that is because ...
It must be SOOOO cool to know everything.
-
Photographers......
.....
....
...
..
.
Untie !
;)
-
Whatever Russ. I guess because you failed to have subject-verb agreement in one of your sentences this means that you really don't know the difference either then, right?
He didn't.
Jeremy
-
Jack, a corporation may or may not be a collection of people. But the corporation in isolation is not a person. It is not an animate being. A corporation, based on my definition, cannot possess. It is just like the house or the hat in your examples. A corporation cannot be ascribed the characteristics of a live being.
Just because Churchill may have been addressing a body of students doesn't preclude a drunken stupor. ;D Some of his best known lines came while drunk.
Here's another grammatical pet peeve. Use of the singular when referring to multiples. It happens all the time both in speech and in writing. Chuck Westfall did it in his talk with DPReview on the new Canon 1 DX: "There's a couple of things we......" Simply atrocious.
-
It must be SOOOO cool to know everything.
I'm curious, Jeremy, were there any men in your family?
___________________________
___________________________
He didn't.
Jeremy
He did.
Please try to remember, Jeremy, that each time you have come here to "correct" me you have not only been incorrect yourself, but you have added further blunders of your own [mis-identifying both a clause (on another thread) and a gerund (on this thread)--not to mention improper apostrophe use on this thread about apostrophes, etc. (http://johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/embarrassed.gif) ).
Oh, and the next time you take quotes directly out of The Elements of Style (i.e., "I will drown and no one will save me," etc.), at least have the decency to provide quotations around the material and cite your reference ... rather than trying to pass-off the material as your own (http://johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/embarrassed.gif)
There must be some kind of curse on the name Jeremy (http://johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
___________________________
___________________________
Jack, a corporation may or may not be a collection of people. But the corporation in isolation is not a person. It is not an animate being. A corporation, based on my definition, cannot possess. It is just like the house or the hat in your examples. A corporation cannot be ascribed the characteristics of a live being.
I agree that a corportation represents one or many people. And while I agree that a corporation is not a sentient being itself, per se, a corporation is still represented by people who most definitely can possess many things. Hence the appropriate use of apostrophes to signify such possession.
Just because Churchill may have been addressing a body of students doesn't preclude a drunken stupor. ;D Some of his best known lines came while drunk.
True (http://johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Here's another grammatical pet peeve. Use of the singular when referring to multiples. It happens all the time both in speech and in writing. Chuck Westfall did it in his talk with DPReview on the new Canon 1 DX: "There's a couple of things we......" Simply atrocious.
Agreed!
Perhaps the most common example of this is, "Here's a hundred dollars ..."
Jack
.
-
Please try to remember, Jeremy, that each time you have come here to "correct" me you have not only been incorrect yourself, but you have added further blunders of your own [mis-identifying both a clause (on another thread) and a gerund (on this thread)--not to mention improper apostrophe use on this thread about apostrophes, etc.
Oh, and the next time you take quotes directly out of The Elements of Style (i.e., "I will drown and no one will save me," etc.), at least have the decency to provide quotations around the material and cite your reference ... rather than trying to pass-off the material as your own
I had never heard of The Elements of Style. I see now that it is a book on the American dialect of English and I propose to read it with relish. The example I gave was, I think, far too widely-known and well-used to be attributable.
Russ was right; you were wrong. The word you used was a gerund and your choosing to call it a participle does not alter its nature, any more than my choosing to describe either occurrence of the word "choosing" in this sentence as a participle would render it other than a gerund. As Lord Templeman rather beautifully put it some years ago, "[t]he manufacture of a five pronged instrument for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade".
However, just as none is so blind as he who will not see, none is so ineducable as he who believes himself omniscient and infallible. Save when you wrongly "correct" others' perfectly correct grammar, I shall henceforth allow you to stew in the juices of your own ignorance.
Jeremy
Incidentally, as a parting shot but without breaking my self-imposed rule set out above, "There's a couple of things..." is correct. The word "couple" is singular. Its plural is "couples".
-
I had never heard of The Elements of Style. I see now that it is a book on the American dialect of English and I propose to read it with relish. The example I gave was, I think, far too widely-known and well-used to be attributable.
Russ was right; you were wrong. The word you used was a gerund and your choosing to call it a participle does not alter its nature, any more than my choosing to describe either occurrence of the word "choosing" in this sentence as a participle would render it other than a gerund. As Lord Templeman rather beautifully put it some years ago, "[t]he manufacture of a five pronged instrument for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade".
However, just as none is so blind as he who will not see, none is so ineducable as he who believes himself omniscient and infallible. Save when you wrongly "correct" others' perfectly correct grammar, I shall henceforth allow you to stew in the juices of your own ignorance.
Jeremy
Incidentally, as a parting shot but without breaking my self-imposed rule set out above, "There's a couple of things..." is correct. The word "couple" is singular. Its plural is "couples".
Hi Jeremy,
I've been trying to clean up and "modernize" your comments here, especially with respect to possessives, and I've run into a couple of difficulties. Perhaps you can help me.
Some points are easy. For example, "The Elements of Style" should obviously be "Style's Elements."
But I'm not so sure about "the American dialect of English." Should it become "American English's dialect?" Sounds a bit awkward.
I was pleased to see "its nature" rather than "nature of it."
But "stew in the juices of your own ignorance" should be "stew in your own ignorance's juices." But I'm still undecided about "There's a couple of things" as opposed to "There's things' couple."
As for your point about the numerical status of the word "couple," I agree. Often near the beginning of a dance, one couple will venture onto the dance floor, soon followed by other couples.
Now if I can find some photographs to illustrate the key photographic features of this thread (Oops: I mean, "this thread's photographic features"), then I will (or is it "shall?") try to post them.
Eric
P.S. Oh, horror! I just noticed my own error: Please replace "couple of difficulties" by "difficulties' couple." :(
-
It must be SOOOO cool to know everything.
Haha. It probably is, but only Jack can inform us.
-
It says something about the state of digital photography (or photography in general) when a post about a tiny typographical sign generates four pages of comments. Hopefully the brewing debate if 18 megapixels is barely enough or too much will soon bring us all back to the right track ;)
-
Good news! I have heard from impeccable sources that Photoshop CS6 will have an apostrophe repair tool. Problem solved. Now about those pesky semicolons...
-
But I'm not so sure about "the American dialect of English." Should it become "American English's dialect?" Sounds a bit awkward.
It could be "English's American dialect", I suppose, but it's still quite inelegant.
Now if I can find some photographs to illustrate the key photographic features of this thread (Oops: I mean, "this thread's photographic features"), then I will (or is it "shall?") try to post them.
It should be "I'll", of course! Then it doesn't matter whether it's will or shall.
Jeremy
-
Incidentally, as a parting shot but without breaking my self-imposed rule set out above, "There's a couple of things..." is correct. The word "couple" is singular. Its plural is "couples".
Well, no. The 'There's (or There is) is in reference to 'things', not couple. Remove 'couple' and There's things is incorrect. Further, when speaking of multiple pairs of people (e.g., couples), then couples is the appropriate word. However the word couple still refers to multiples - two to be exact and thus is, in itself, a plural. But that's irrelevant because, as noted, the 'there's' refers to 'things'.
-
I had never heard of The Elements of Style. I see now that it is a book on the American dialect of English and I propose to read it with relish. The example I gave was, I think, far too widely-known and well-used to be attributable.
Russ was right; you were wrong. The word you used was a gerund and your choosing to call it a participle does not alter its nature, any more than my choosing to describe either occurrence of the word "choosing" in this sentence as a participle would render it other than a gerund. As Lord Templeman rather beautifully put it some years ago, "[t]he manufacture of a five pronged instrument for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade".
However, just as none is so blind as he who will not see, none is so ineducable as he who believes himself omniscient and infallible. Save when you wrongly "correct" others' perfectly correct grammar, I shall henceforth allow you to stew in the juices of your own ignorance.
Jeremy
Incidentally, as a parting shot but without breaking my self-imposed rule set out above, "There's a couple of things..." is correct. The word "couple" is singular. Its plural is "couples".
Hey Jeremy,
Just wanted to let you know that, aside from you being wrong in your "corrections," and aside from you trying to claim you weren't quoting text (when in fact you were), and aside from you trying to ignore the fact you misused an apostrophe on a thread about apostrophes (see Page 1, Replies #14 & 15), you now have committed a 4th grammatical blunder in your repeated pedantic attempts to "sound smart" ... which this time is misplacing a period outside a quotation.
You said,
"[t]he manufacture of a five pronged instrument for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade".
(Note the red period.)
I will help you upgrade your English usage once again by reminding you that, when you utilize a quotation, the period goes inside the quotation marks not outside. Thus, the correct way to have displayed Lord Templeman's quote would be, "[t]he manufacture of a five pronged instrument for manual digging results in a fork even if the manufacturer, unfamiliar with the English language, insists that he intended to make and has made a spade."
So keep studying all those books, Jeremy, and maybe one day you will be able to get your grammar up to an acceptable level to where you don't make some total blunder of the English language each and every time you try to provide a "correction" (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Cheers,
Jack
.
-
Blah Blah ... "I know everything"
You are wrong. Jeremy was correct in placing his period outside the quotation marks as Jeremy is following the "logical" punctuation conventions our our British partners in the English language are wont to do.
Get over yourself, dude ... you just ain't as smart as you think you are ...
-
You are wrong. Jeremy was correct in placing his period outside the quotation marks as Jeremy is following the "logical" punctuation conventions our our British partners in the English language are wont to do.
Get over yourself, dude ... you just ain't as smart as you think you are ...
Again, we find another self-professed "grammarian" who is not only wrong in his "correction," but who commits a further blunder in his own attempt to correct.
As for British English, America rid itself of British rule centuries ago, and soundly defeated the British army (despite being vastly out-manned and vastly out-gunned), by using our superior wits. America then saved the British, not once, but twice, in WWI and WWII respectively. So pardon me if I dismiss what you said about where the period should be placed.
As for me "getting over myself," that will be pretty tough for me to do, since I am myself, and find myself afflicted with being myself every moment of every day.
Perhaps you could show me how this is done by getting over yourself. Wait. Before you try to master that hurdle, I honestly think you need first to get over me. I say that "you" need to get over "me" first, because it seems like you follow me around everywhere I go, and it seems like you attack me in every thread topic in which I participate. I don't know if this is some kind of "man crush" you have on me, or what, but your relentless badgering of me (unprovoked) on every thread topic in which I debate is approaching the point of pathology.
I would also like to point out that you likewise seem to have a fixation on "parsimony" ... or being brief, "short in length," etc.
Now, I was recently reprimanded by Michael again, for questioning your manhood, and for that I sincerely apologize. However, as one man to another, I strongly suggest you seek counsel to reveal the reasons 1) why you feel the need to follow another man {me} around all the time, launching unprovoked attacks, and 2) why you are obsessed with brevity and "shortness of length."
In closing, Jeremy, I will have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on period placement, and I feel my contributions to this thread topic have been made, so that no further comment is necessary.
Take care now,
Jack
.
-
Jack, There's an old saying: "When you find yourself in a hole, better stop digging." I'd respectfully suggest you stop digging. Your misuse of "to lay" said it all. But you're far from unique. Most Americans in your age group don't understand the difference between those two verbs and can't conjugate either one. I'm sure you can't either. Don't despair. Just stop digging.
-
...
I agree that a corportation represents one or many people.
...
Dear Jack,
I appeal to you as the very embodiment of linguistic perfection: Can you explain to me exactly what a "corportation" is? Youth wants to know. :-\
Eric
-
Jeremy is correct, Jack. In the UK, period use can fall outside the quoted material. It depends on where it makes more logical sense to place it. Most people in Canada adhere to the U.S. (aka Philistinian - yes, I made that word up) convention which is strictly that periods go inside the quoted material in all cases. Damned lazy Americans. ::) :P You take out u's willy nilly, replace 's' with 'z' and perform numerous other abominations on the English language. :-*
-
Dear Jack,
I appeal to you as the very embodiment of linguistic perfection: Can you explain to me exactly what a "corportation" is? Youth wants to know. :-\
Eric
Okay, Eric, I'll have to agree you're a "youth."
p.s. I'm doing this stuff from a motel in Amarillo.
-
Jeremy is correct, Jack. In the UK, period use can fall outside the quoted material. It depends on where it makes more logical sense to place it. Most people in Canada adhere to the U.S. (aka Philistinian - yes, I made that word up) convention which is strictly that periods go inside the quoted material in all cases. Damned lazy Americans. ::) :P You take out u's willy nilly, replace 's' with 'z' and perform numerous other abominations on the English language. :-*
Sounds to me like the British are the lazy ones, who can't make up their minds "where" to put the period, while in fact it is the Americans who are vigilant enough to maintain strict adherence to a credo of placing the period inside the quotation mark at all times ;)
By what convoluted logic do you call strict adherence "lazy" and random placement "logical?"
Jack
.
-
The following arrived today in my daily email from Wordsmith.org:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (1887-1985)
Cheers
Trevor
-
The following arrived today in my daily email from Wordsmith.org:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (1887-1985)
Cheers
Trevor
Thank you, Trevor.
That quote is probably the only post in this thread (including, or perhaps especially, my own) that is worth paying any attention to.
Eric
-
Now, I was recently reprimanded by Michael again,
.
Again? This means that you have been reprimanded multiple times. This is not hard to imagine at all.
-
I had never heard of The Elements of Style. I see now that it is a book on the American dialect of English and I propose to read it with relish. The example I gave was, I think, far too widely-known and well-used to be attributable.
Hey Jeremy,
... aside from you trying to claim you weren't quoting text (when in fact you were) ...
Jack,
Those of us who frequent these forums are used to your semi-coherent rants, with their droll non sequiturs and ludicrous generalisations. Some are upset by them; I treat them in general with simular amused weariness to that with which I treat the occasional (and, thankfully, much rarer) temper tantrums of my six-year-old daughter. Even your vague threats of physical violence (see the penultimate post here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=57291.msg471006#msg471009)) carry a rather feeble, attention-seeking air.
Here, however, you have overstepped the bounds of decency. I will not tolerate your accusing me of lying. I have said that I had never heard of the book you mention: I meant exactly what I said. You have no grounds on which to accuse me of lying and I resent your unfounded accusation of dishonesty.
I insist that you withdraw the accusation as publicly as you made it. If you had any concept of decent behaviour, you would also apologise, but I shan't hold my breath awaiting that.
Jeremy
PS: your accusation should, of course, have read "aside from your trying to claim...".
PPS: Damn it - another self-imposed rule broken already.
-
That quote is probably the only post in this thread (including, or perhaps especially, my own) that is worth paying any attention to.
That's a little unkind to Lord Templeman, Eric.
Jeremy
-
Good news! I have heard from impeccable sources that Photoshop CS6 will have an apostrophe repair tool. Problem solved. Now about those pesky semicolons...
Is that something to do with prostrate problems?
-
Is that something to do with prostrate problems?
Who mentioned Chinese emperors?
Jeremy
-
...|WORDS|...
I don't recall you questioning my manhood, but that's not an apology, Jack.
I don't "follow you around" ... I simply read the forum. You are omnipresent ... and very wordy.
-
By what convoluted logic do you call strict adherence "lazy" and random placement "logical?"
Jack
.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jack. You've messed up a grammatical rule. Notice the red question mark. In American grammar periods always go inside the quote irrespective of whether the period is yours or of the quoted passage (note I didn't say 'the passage's' :) ). With other forms of punctuation; however, (and yes, a semicolon before 'however' is perfectly acceptable) the punctuation is placed where it should logically go (ooops, sorry, there's that dastardly British thing again). If the quoted passage is a question, the question mark goes inside the quotes. If the quoted passage is part of a question you are asking the question mark goes outside the quotes. Back to Grammar 101 for you, Jack. ;D
That quote from Trevor is brilliant.
To your actual question: It's not 'random' placement at all. The British follow the same guideline as for other forms of punctuation. You Yanks have 'randomly' decided that for one form of punctuation you're going to have one rule and for other forms of punctuation you'll have another rule. I guess maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't lazy. It's just odd. ;D :D
-
My day job is copy-editing (English) scientific text, but I would never hold myself up as an authority on grammar. Our office is filled to bursting with style guides, word usage manuals, and grammar texts. (Did you notice that I placed a comma before the "and" in that series? That's something that some people object to, based on yet more "rule".) There are a few hard and fast grammatical rules, but they are outnumbered by about two orders of magnitude (that's hyperbole) by conventions, arbitrary style requirements, exceptions, unthought-of-before new uses, etc. Endlessly quoting rules is quite funny to me, considering how often all these style guides and grammar texts contradict each other. Spend the day reading a few, you may never quote another "rule" again. And even if you can find three that agree on something, odds are that they will disagree in their next edition(s). (Did you notice that I started a sentence with "And"? Somewhere, someone wrote a "rule" about that, I'm certain of it.)
-
Agreed, Robert. It's just a bit of fun poking at Jack is all. ;D
-
The following arrived today in my daily email from Wordsmith.org:
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry ... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. -George Polya, mathematician (1887-1985)
Cheers
Trevor
Interesting quote, Trevor.
If American English mandates that all punctuation be placed inside quotation marks (except the semicolon/colon), while the English vacillate between inside/outside, does that make all Americans "pedants" and all British "masters"? (Note the question mark outside the quotation mark ;) )
If there are more Americans on the planet than there are English, then (if we accept the premise that "majority rules"--not even getting into the fact that the American whipped the English in battle, and subsequently saved them from destruction twice), who is correct?
Regarding George Polya, the mathemetician, let us examine his statemement closely. Would you say that if George wanted to find the surface area of a circle, for example, do you think he emloyed the rule of π (pi) x r2, or do you think he applied some other "random formula" with "natural ease"?
If George wanted to find the surface area of a rectangle, do you think he applied the rule of L x W, or do you think he applied some other formula with "natural ease"?
If George likewise wanted to find the surface area of a triangle, do you think he applied the rule of 1/2xB x H, or do you think he applied some other formula with "natural ease"?
Etc., etc. ...
In other words, if George Polya knew (and followed) all of the rules of mathematics to achieve the solutions to his mathematical problems, do you think this made him a "pedant" or a "master" in mathematics?
Jack
PS: BTW, do you think that a person who mindlessly follows little "quotes for the day," without taking the time to analyze them and see if they make sense under scrutiny, that such a person is a pedant or a master of what he reads? Or would you say he's just a parrot, who repeats what he reads, with no real independent understanding of his own?
.
-
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jack. You've messed up a grammatical rule. Notice the red question mark. In American grammar periods always go inside the quote irrespective of whether the period is yours or of the quoted passage (note I didn't say 'the passage's' :) ). With other forms of punctuation; however, (and yes, a semicolon before 'however' is perfectly acceptable) the punctuation is placed where it should logically go (ooops, sorry, there's that dastardly British thing again). If the quoted passage is a question, the question mark goes inside the quotes. If the quoted passage is part of a question you are asking the question mark goes outside the quotes. Back to Grammar 101 for you, Jack. ;D
That quote from Trevor is brilliant.
To your actual question: It's not 'random' placement at all. The British follow the same guideline as for other forms of punctuation. You Yanks have 'randomly' decided that for one form of punctuation you're going to have one rule and for other forms of punctuation you'll have another rule. I guess maybe you're right. Maybe it isn't lazy. It's just odd. ;D :D
Wrong.
Question marks, etc., go inside the quotation marks; semicolons go outside.
Also, a quotation mark of a direct quote follows different guidelines than the aribrary use of these marks to "call attention to" distinctive words. In other words, "Bob said something incorrect," follows different rules from Bob is "wrong".
Jack
.
-
I don't recall you questioning my manhood, but that's not an apology, Jack.
I don't "follow you around" ... I simply read the forum. You are omnipresent ... and very wordy.
If I am "omnipresent" in your eyes, then you must be filled with the very "man crush" I described earlier.
The truth is, I only post regularly on maybe 3-5 of the 28 total forums on this board, and within these few sub-forums, the truth is I post on only a small fraction of the threads contained therein. The tendency to exaggerate is its own form of pathology, Jeremy, so you really have a lot of work to do to unravel yourself from the twisted ideas that seem to possess you.
You will also note that everyone else here (except you) originally was debating only topics related to the use of the English language, whereas only you attacked me specifically in your opening post, with no mention made of the thread topic at all. Go back to your original post, and you will see this.
Jack
.
-
By the time that this silly pissing contest contest is over, the punctuation rules of both British English and American English will have evolved. After all, the languages are constantly evolving. I wish that a certain inflated ego would evolve into a normal sized mature one.
-
Sorry, Jack. You're mistaken. And do you see how that's a much softer way of putting it than saying 'wrong'? 'Wrong' is very much a conversation ender. It's offensive and far too blunt for polite company.
From the University of Toronto on using quotations:
"In Canada and the United States, commas and periods never go outside a quotation mark. They are always absorbed as part of the quotation, whether they belong to you or to the author you are quoting:
'I am a man / more sinned against than sinning,' Lear pronounces in Act 3, Scene 2 (59-60).
However, stronger forms of punctuation such as question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation if they belong to the author, and outside if they do not:
Bewildered, Lear asks the fool, 'Who is it that can tell me who I am?' (1.4.227).
Why is Lear so rash as to let his 'two daughters' dowers digest the third' (1.1.127)?"
From Grammarbook.com on using quotation marks and punctuation:
"Rule 2. The placement of question marks with quotes follows logic. If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks.
Examples: She asked, 'Will you still be my friend?'
Do you agree with the saying, 'All's fair in love and war'?
Here the question is outside the quote.
NOTE: Only one ending punctuation mark is used with quotation marks. Also, the stronger punctuation mark wins. Therefore, no period after war is used."
AP Stylebook:
"a question mark is inside quotation marks if that part is the question and outside the quotation marks if the whole sentence is a question. (The same rule applies to exclamation marks and dashes. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.)" Note: the final reference is, of course, in relation to American Grammar.
Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance). This was fun up till now, Jack. But it's starting to get a bit tiresome. Here's what I know: You don't know as much as you think you do. There's an old saying that perhaps you ought to consider. Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or put fingers to keyboard) and remove all doubt.
-
Sorry, Jack. You're mistaken. And do you see how that's a much softer way of putting it than saying 'wrong'? 'Wrong' is very much a conversation ender. It's offensive and far too blunt for polite company.
I am never mistaken; once I thought I was mistaken, but I was wrong.
From the University of Toronto on using quotations:
"In Canada and the United States, commas and periods never go outside a quotation mark. They are always absorbed as part of the quotation, whether they belong to you or to the author you are quoting:
'I am a man / more sinned against than sinning,' Lear pronounces in Act 3, Scene 2 (59-60).
Precisely my point.
However, stronger forms of punctuation such as question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation if they belong to the author, and outside if they do not:
Bewildered, Lear asks the fool, 'Who is it that can tell me who I am?' (1.4.227).
You have shown no difference here: the question mark goes inside the question asked in the quote, while the period ending the full sentence goes outside.
Why is Lear so rash as to let his 'two daughters' dowers digest the third' (1.1.127)?"
I agree with this logic, as the question falls outside the actual quote.
From Grammarbook.com on using quotation marks and punctuation:
"Rule 2. The placement of question marks with quotes follows logic. If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks.
Examples: She asked, 'Will you still be my friend?'
Do you agree with the saying, 'All's fair in love and war'?
Here the question is outside the quote.
NOTE: Only one ending punctuation mark is used with quotation marks. Also, the stronger punctuation mark wins. Therefore, no period after war is used."
AP Stylebook:
"a question mark is inside quotation marks if that part is the question and outside the quotation marks if the whole sentence is a question. (The same rule applies to exclamation marks and dashes. Periods and commas always go inside quotation marks.)" Note: the final reference is, of course, in relation to American Grammar.
I actually agree with all of this.
Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance).
Actually, no it isn't.
Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies. This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.
This was fun up till now, Jack. But it's starting to get a bit tiresome. Here's what I know: You don't know as much as you think you do. There's an old saying that perhaps you ought to consider. Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth (or put fingers to keyboard) and remove all doubt.
I am sorry you are no longer having fun (but this is the sign of your own weakness, I'm afraid).
The truth is, I do know as much as I think I know; it is you who do not.
I would suggest you pay attention to your own adage, and stop moving your own fingers so fast (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
Jack, if you're going to start moving into ad hominem comments then this really won't be fun any longer. So, in very plain English, stuff the 'weakness' type comments up your ass.
You said Question marks, etc., go inside the quotation marks; semicolons go outside.
Then said I agree with this logic, as the question falls outside the actual quote.
in response to this passage: Why is Lear so rash as to let his "two daughters' dowers digest the third" (1.1.127)? I think you may have confused the double quotes I used in quoting the passage and the single quotes I modified for the quoted passage from the source I cited - using single quotes to cite a quote inside another quoted passage is the correct use - which comes from the last section here, http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/using-sources/quotations titled How is punctuation affected by quotation
There is a glaring inconsistency in your comments. Whether you see it or are prepared to admit it, it's there. Flat out: You're wrong. Yes, I'm using that very strong word. Admit it, don't, it matters not. The fact remains, you are. End of story.
WRT Precisely my point
once again you're referring to American grammar. And while I am Canadian, I prefer to use the Queen's English.
-
This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.
-
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.
You mean Logic wasn't invented by either Humpty-Dumpty or by Jack? Whoda thunk? ;D
-
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic
That you then proceed with a logical fallacy is sweetly ironic.
Actually, my point was made by your link.
Poor Bob said, "Comparing mathematical and scientific formulae to 'conventions' of language use and suggesting that the former should be used in relation to the latter insofar as adherance to 'rules' goes might just be the height of pedantry (and ignorance)," proved his own ignorance, as I stated.
I made the irrefutable point that "Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies," and as a person who holds a degree in this subject, I stated that this is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use. Thus, once again, your denial of this fact (hilariously) reflects the height of your own ignorance.
Therefore, the very fact that you posted a link which directly states: "Logic in manners of speech actually attempts to reflect mathematical truths and consistencies," completely proves my point ... and the very fact that you (and others like you) are too clueless about the nature of logic to recognize this immediately is an embarrassment to you and your ancestors.
Jack
.
-
Read Carefully from your own link:
"Logic was revived in the mid-nineteenth century, at the beginning of a revolutionary period when the subject developed into a rigorous and formalistic discipline whose exemplar was the exact method of proof used in mathematics. The development of the modern so-called 'symbolic' or 'mathematical' logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history."
Jack
.
-
For Heaven's sake, Jack, stop digging!
-
I read it all, Jack. I also understood it. None of it supports your assertion that, "This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use."
The concept of logic predates any concept of lexical or grammatical precision. Logic lead to precise word use, not the other way around.
That you continue to engage in personal insults with abusive language and references to national origins, personal ancestors and other such nonesense is deplorable.
It is not possible to conduct a discussion with you, Jack, because you have already determined that everything that you say is correct without the possibility of correction, education or elucidation by others. Unfortunately, you are frequently wrong. Your grasp of logic is at best inconsistent. Your attitude of excreable. This combination makes any dialogue with your utterly pointless and, to that end, I will not continue any engagement with you.
Please feel free to have the last word. With any luck, that will be true, and this wonderful site will be spared your further vapidity.
-
I read it all, Jack. I also understood it. None of it supports your assertion that, "This is how the entire concept of LOGIC was created: precision of word use."
We disagree then.
The concept of logic predates any concept of lexical or grammatical precision. Logic lead to precise word use, not the other way around.
It doesn't matter what original, elder, unformed attempts at logic were (or were not). The fact that (and again I quote your own link), "The development of the modern so-called 'symbolic' or 'mathematical' logic during this period is the most significant in the two-thousand-year history of logic, and is arguably one of the most important and remarkable events in human intellectual history," means everything, and in fact supports MY belief system and not yours.
That you continue to engage in personal insults with abusive language and references to national origins, personal ancestors and other such nonesense is deplorable.
Forgive me, then, for the insults.
The fact that you cannot see the point of this discussion, ultimately, has been supported by your link, which confirms what I have been asserting all along is likewise deplorable, though for different reasons.
It is not possible to conduct a discussion with you, Jack, because you have already determined that everything that you say is correct without the possibility of correction, education or elucidation by others.
Sure it is possible to conduct a discussion with me. What is not possible is for 'you' to beat 'me' at my own game, which is wherein your frustration lies.
The trouble you're having in this particular conversation is the fact that I have been right all along, and that your own reference link proved my point, to which fact you are not yet noble enough to admit.
Unfortunately, you are frequently wrong. Your grasp of logic is at best inconsistent. Your attitude of excreable. This combination makes any dialogue with your utterly pointless and, to that end, I will not continue any engagement with you.
My grasp of logic carries a degree from UCLA, how about yours?
I admit, my attitude is one of disdain for folks such as you, who have no such degree in logic, and who make mindless references to "links" which they clearly have not read (or do not understand) themselves, and yet which links they provide (unbeknownst to them) actually support what I have been saying all along.
Please feel free to have the last word. With any luck, that will be true, and this wonderful site will be spared your further vapidity.
Thank you, I have had the last word, provided you do not succumb to the urge to retort.
As far as vapidity goes, that is the last thing my words carry. I tend to inspire passion in people (for better or worse), which is why so many people tend to "follow" me (for better or worse), while in fact your own words are what carry no weight, no understanding, and inspire no passion.
Have a good night Farmer,
Jack
.
-
Nothing you've said proves my ignorance nor anyone else's except your own, Jack. There is nothing in that passage you highlighted, nothing, that indicates that scientific/mathematical logic is based on precision in use of language. Did you write that Wikipedia entry on the history of logic? If so then I can understand why you might stand behind it so firmly. But nothing in it supports your position. The sentence preceding the one you highlight contradicts your position.
-
PS: BTW, do you think that a person who mindlessly follows little "quotes for the day,"
.
One of the best "Quotes of the Day" I have ever read, and it certainly seems to apply here is, "When you argue with a fool - there are two fools arguing".
William