INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Peter on November 11, 2007, 09:00:28 AM
-
There's things about writing in English that keep bugging me, and which I've never found satisfactory answers to. Should I write 'anymore' or 'any more'? The former sounds right but comes up as an incorrect spelling while the latter seems wrong but comes up right in spell-checkers. And what about making a contraction of 'there are'? Is it correct to write "there's", as in "There's a lot of objects here.", when the full version would be "There are a lot of objects here."? I've never come across "There're" used anywhere. And what about quotations? Is there only one way to do those, or is it a flexible system? I know that I should use a new paragraph for each change of speaker in a dialogue, but what about nesting quotations inside other sentences? Should it be "He said she said."? Or "He said she said"? Or something else?
-
I think 'anymore' is right.
'There's' should be 'there're' I think, but I've never actually seen that word used. If it's plural though then 'there's' would be incorrect I think.
And I think it's "He said she said". But I don't know.
Damn I did A level English :-[
-
I did higher English, but they never really taught us much grammar. It was all about critiquing poems and stuff; we mostly only did grammar in foreign language classes.
-
There's (contraction of the pronoun "there" and the auxiliary verb "is") in formal English is incorrect. If the "object" of a sentence is plural, it should be proceeded after "are" (also an auxiliary verb).
Subject: There
Verb: are
Object (noun phrase): a lot of things.
-
Who's your daddy? ;p
-
i think there's is acceptable, there're is stupid. ;D
-
There's (contraction of the pronoun "there" and the auxiliary verb "is") in formal English is incorrect. If the "object" of a sentence is plural, it should be proceeded after "are" (also an auxiliary verb).
Subject: There
Verb: are
Object (noun phrase): a lot of things.
My English language education didn't include any material on pronouns or auxiliary verbs that I remember. I just learned it naturally, and intuit as I write, so I'm always a bit fuzzy on the specifics of the rules.
-
i learned naturally too, i don't have concentration for boring crap.
-
I learned naturally too; I don't have the concentration for boring crap.
Better.
-
Whether the punctuation belongs inside or outside the quotation marks depends on whether British English or American English conventions are followed.
A good guide to American conventions is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strunk_and_White), while a good guide to British conventions is Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_Modern_English_Usage).
-
I learned naturally too; I don't have concentration for boring crap.
Better.
bastard.
-
I learned naturally too; I don't have the concentration for boring crap.
Better.
bastard.
You quoted me when I didn't include the definite article "the" before "concentration". :(
-
what the hell are you talking about? :laugh:
-
Whether the punctuation belongs inside or outside the quotation marks depends on whether British English or American English conventions are followed.
A good guide to American conventions is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strunk_and_White), while a good guide to British conventions is Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_Modern_English_Usage).
That's probably the source of my uncertainty; I'll have seen both conventions and not known which one to use.
-
There's (contraction of the pronoun "there" and the auxiliary verb "is") in formal English is incorrect. If the "object" of a sentence is plural, it should be proceeded after "are" (also an auxiliary verb).
Subject: There
Verb: are
Object (noun phrase): a lot of things.
Lot is singular. There's is correct.
-
I've never come across "There're" used anywhere.
Not really an acceptable contraction,
nowadays. But, I'm all in favor of adding
more. :laugh:
-
me too. :laugh:
-
There's is a contraction of there and is... why would There are be there's... there's no s in are.
-
There's is a contraction of there and is... why would There are be there's... there's no s in are.
Because it's commonly used and English has more exceptions than rules, so what's one more?
-
There's (contraction of the pronoun "there" and the auxiliary verb "is") in formal English is incorrect. If the "object" of a sentence is plural, it should be proceeded after "are" (also an auxiliary verb).
Subject: There
Verb: are
Object (noun phrase): a lot of things.
Lot is singular. There's is correct.
Is this because of the indefinite article?
"There is a lot..."
"There are lots..."
Hmm. I see.
-
The article is merely a clue.
Lot is simply singular.
-
there's's incorrect, you mean.
-
There are. It is just not contracted. When I say it, no matter how short I say the "are" it still sounds very close to "there are". Maybe it depends on whether you roll the r?
Whereas if I say "there's" the i is completely cut off the "is".
-
There're is pronounced very similarly to therer. :laugh:
-
There's things about writing in English that keep bugging me, and which I've never found satisfactory answers to. Should I write 'anymore' or 'any more'? The former sounds right but comes up as an incorrect spelling while the latter seems wrong but comes up right in spell-checkers. And what about making a contraction of 'there are'? Is it correct to write "there's", as in "There's a lot of objects here.", when the full version would be "There are a lot of objects here."? I've never come across "There're" used anywhere. And what about quotations? Is there only one way to do those, or is it a flexible system? I know that I should use a new paragraph for each change of speaker in a dialogue, but what about nesting quotations inside other sentences? Should it be "He said she said."? Or "He said she said"? Or something else?
1. use "anymore" when referring to time; use "any more" when referring to a quantity of anything else.
e.g. "i don't drive to work anymore." "is there any more cake?"
2. use there are. just sounds more formal, but it's correct, although it depends what you're writing - dialogue/speech written in colloquial form would be more likely to use "there's", if that's how the character speaks.
3. quotations are written thusly: "so, he said, 'wtf are you on about?' and so i decked him." if you use single quotation marks ('), then use double inside them: 'so he said, "wtf are you on about?" so i decked him."
4. punctuation goes inside the quotation marks, but there doesn't seem to be an absolute convention on this: my PhD director of studies does it the other way round, but that's how i teach it.
5. funnily enough, although strunk and white are american, i use (and recommend) their book for grammar, cos it's brilliant. and correct english. and inexpensive.
-
Typo in #3, the end double quote.
4. punctuation goes inside the quotation marks, but there doesn't seem to be an absolute convention on this: my PhD director of studies does it the other way round, but that's how i teach it.
5. funnily enough, although strunk and white are american, i use (and recommend) their book for grammar, cos it's brilliant. and correct english. and inexpensive.
I've only seen putting punctuation OUTSIDE the quotes
(except with a single exception) advocated by the English.
Might this point be related to #5?
-
i was taught that punctuation goes inside the qms
-
Pocket-sized Grammar & Punctuation books from Oxford are your friends.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I like to bring up this subject: Why is it that correcting punctuation usage makes you a grammar nazi? In English language books, they always make a distinction between grammar & punctuation.
For example:
"I are am going to those the zoo." <-- by correcting the improper usage of the primary auxiliary verb "are" (replacing it with "am"), and the lack of a definite article (the) for the proceeding noun "zoo", this should make me a grammar nazi.
"I am not happy; the burglars have stolen my money." <-- by placing a semi-colon in between of the independent clauses that both have a close relationship with each other, and by placing a full stop at the end of the second clause to close the written statement, this should make me a punctuation nazi.
-
And welcome back, monkey man.
-
???
-
Punctuation is a PART of grammar,
just as grammar is a part of language.
-
Punctuation is a PART of grammar,
just as grammar is a part of language.
I'd like to think that they correspond to English writing, but are not necessarily the same thing; otherwise, what is the point in distinguishing grammar & punctuation in writing books?
You might as well just call it grammar; but if we do that, it would be more confusing.
-
THERE'S A DISTINCTION, MOTHERFUCKERS!!! :finger:
-
What's the distinction?
-
What's the distinction?
Grammar & Punctuation.
-
Spelling, I presume. :laugh:
-
What's the distinction?
Grammar & Punctuation.
*groan*
-
Spelling, I presume. :laugh:
That too.
-
What's the distinction?
Grammar & Punctuation.
*groan*
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
-
What's the distinction?
Grammar & Punctuation.
*groan*
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
That's a non-reply with bad punctuation.
-
What's the distinction?
Grammar & Punctuation.
*groan*
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?
That's a non-reply with bad punctuation.
I thought that asterisks were used in writing to highlight actions.
-
I get those questions to, but I don't get overwhelmed if one person misspells something.
-
^to, too, two.
-
:laugh:
bugs me when people say to instead of too. but i sometimes say too instead of two for some reasons. :laugh:
-
To say two when too is meant is quite common, too. :P
-
:laugh:
and extra esses end up at the ends of words as you can see with my last post. :P
-
Colons and Semi-Colons (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-colons-and-semi-colons)
Commas (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-commas)
Apostrophes (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-an-apostrophe)
Parentheses & Square Brackets (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-parentheses-and-square-brackets)
I.e. & E.g. (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-ie-and-eg)
Capital Letters (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-capital-letters)
Quotation Marks (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-quotation-marks)
Exclamation Marks (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-exclamation-marks)
Italics (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-italics)
Block Quotes (http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-use-block-quotes)
Hope it's useful to you guys. Have fun learning the marvels of punctuation usage. :)
(I am being a punctuation nazi, not a grammar one.)
-
i think it's about time i went back to punctuating my posts 8)
maybe it can be my new years resolution
-
Relative clauses are used to add information to the noun or pronoun they modify. Sometimes this clause is essential to the entire sentence. If you are without a relative clause, the sentence may not make any sense.
For example: "A person who was a former criminal will not be a potential candidate for a job at the police office."
If you erase the clause, the sentence above will not make any sense: we are not certain as to what kind of person is eligible for a job at the police office. These are called "defining relative clauses".
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.
These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.
Warning: Use who, whom, whose, or that for defining relative clauses; with the exception of that, use the first three relative pronouns for non-defining clauses.
-
*brain shuts down* :orly:
-
*brain shuts down* :orly:
That was my being a grammar nazi.
-
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.
These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.
First of all, note how your first sentence would probably work better without the commas (or at least the first one). Then, consider that sentence without the relative clause:
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
The point is that the lost clause was not unimportant because while logically, not all "information" is essential, the lost clause is needed to state this clearly. Therefore, the commas should go.
-
lollol
-
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
E.g.: The knight, who is clad in ebony armour, lunges forth against the ferocious beast.
These are called "non-defining relative clauses"; you'll easily recognise them by punctuation.
First of all, note how your first sentence would probably work better without the commas (or at least the first one). Then, consider that sentence without the relative clause:
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
The point is that the lost clause was not unimportant because while logically, not all "information" is essential, the lost clause is needed to state this clearly. Therefore, the commas should go.
But the sentence is about the knight (subject) attacking the ferocious beast (object). The relative clause I provided was not essential to the sentence in question: it still makes sense without the clause. Therefore, it's subordinated.
Though if you still believe that I'm incorrect, feel free to clarify your argument by providing me a demonstration yourself on how relative clauses should be properly used in English writing. :)
-
Oh, the knight example is absolutely correct. I was talking about this one:
Now if you have a relative clause which provides interesting information, but isn't essential to the sentence in terms of meaning, you can still use the sentence without the clause as we will understand what the sentence is elaborating about.
:plus: for an interesting post, btw. :)
-
can two positives make a negative?
-
can two positives make a negative?
I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.
-
can two positives make a negative?
I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.
Yeah, right...
-
can two positives make a negative?
I'm positive that's an unnecessarily negative view of the truth. So, negative.
Yeah, right...
So if I did that right, two negatives can mean a positive. :laugh:
-
lollol
I plussed them both, anyway.
Any one want to ralk aboutt Spanish?
-
and they both deserved it.
-
lollol
I plussed them both, anyway.
Any one want to ralk aboutt Spanish?
I'd love to but I don't know enough Spanish to be able to contribute meaningfully.
-
:laugh:
bugs me when people say to instead of too. but i sometimes say too instead of two for some reasons. :laugh:
Honestly, I can't hear the difference.
-
i think it's about time i went back to punctuating my posts 8)
maybe it can be my new years resolution
't be nice.
-
Help!
-
Help?
-
:laugh:
bugs me when people say to instead of too. but i sometimes say too instead of two for some reasons. :laugh:
Honestly, I can't hear the difference.
i can't hear the diff tween two and too, but i can hear it between to and too which is why it bothers me. cuz there's an obvious difference between too and to. ok maybe not so obvious but i hear differences in everything.
-
Help!
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp
Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples: Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.
We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank. We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)
We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct.
-
Help!
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp
Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples: Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.
We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank. We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)
We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct.
Oh my GOD. I was seriously talking about the difference between who and whom about nine hours ago. And the same analogy (he/him) was used.
-
whom is almost dead
long live lazy Americans like me
-
i can't hear the diff tween two and too, but i can hear it between to and too which is why it bothers me. cuz there's an obvious difference between too and to. ok maybe not so obvious but i hear differences in everything.
You may just be right there,
though I presume that different
regions might not have those
differences. There's often a
shortening of 'to', sometimes
so extreme as t'eliminate the
vowel sound entirely. :laugh:
-
whom is almost dead
long live lazy Americans like me
I blame The Who.
-
Help!
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp
Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples: Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.
We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank. We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)
We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct.
what if you say it was him that pulled the prank? :P i got a 7 in grammar lol. it was so boring.
-
Just wanted to resurrect this thread because it is interesting, I learnt about who/whom and recently I got stuck on the words while and whilst when I was writing an essay. I can't remember what one I used in the end.
Today I saw a sign that said Corona's when it should have been Coronas but that is punctuation. I am going to have to take photos of all these misplaced apostrophes around town some day.
-
Help!
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp (http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhom.asp)
Use the he/him method to decide which word is correct.
he = who
him = whom
Examples: Who/Whom wrote the letter?
He wrote the letter. Therefore, who is correct.
For who/whom should I vote?
Should I vote for him? Therefore, whom is correct.
We all know who/whom pulled that prank.
This sentence contains two clauses: We all know and who/whom pulled that prank. We are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. He pulled that prank. Therefore, who is correct. (Are you starting to sound like a hooting owl yet?)
We want to know on who/whom the prank was pulled.
This sentence contains two clauses: We want to know and the prank was pulled on who/whom. Again, we are interested in the second clause because it contains the who/whom. The prank was pulled on him. Therefore, whom is correct.
Oh my GOD. I was seriously talking about the difference between who and whom about nine hours ago. And the same analogy (he/him) was used.
It's really weird to go back and read posts like this and have absolutely no idea what the hell I was referring to.
-
Misplaced apostrophes count among cardinal sins.
-
Misplaced apostrophes count among cardinal sins.
I found it for you.
(http://i47.tinypic.com/300sk06.jpg)
-
Thank you but you really shouldn't have. :P