We've launched the new forums! Read more here

The Grammar & Usage Thread

ClairefromClare said:
"Booya" is simply a greeting that's supposed to sound cool and street smart.
Click to expand...

You've just admitted that you're cool & street smart?? Well booya to you Claire.
1946.gif


A quick Google of "hoa" gives you a choice between "Home Owners' Association" and an ethically Chinese minority in Viet Nam. Neither definition is likely to be of much help to you--I'll let someone trendier than I give you the definitive meaning.
Click to expand...

I've noticed it said in (bad) Marine movies. :soldier:
 
TheNewBrad said:
You've just admitted that you're cool & street smart?? Well booya to you Claire.
1946.gif
Click to expand...

Only in my dreams! Let's just say there's WAY too much CNBC in my life.


TheNewBrad said:
I've noticed it said in (bad) Marine movies. :soldier:
Click to expand...

I'd venture to say they're not talking about home owners' associations.
 
MO_Hacker said:
I read once that it is the correct answer to any order or question asked of a soldier by one of his superiors. hooyah, sir
Click to expand...

So it has taken over from "yes sir" or "aye, aye, sir"??. Messrs. Strunk & White might be turning over in their respective graves at that one.
423.gif
211.gif
 
Last edited:
I am we Todd it

I am sofa King we Todd it

( an oldie but goodie) :confused2:
 
In the "What's In My Bag" column of the December 2008 issue of Golf Digest (p.166) for Ryuji Imada:

Witb.jpg


Quality editing!
 
Harry Longshanks said:
In the "What's In My Bag" column of the December 2008 issue of Golf Digest (p.166) for Ryuji Imada:
....

Quality editing!
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen those articles & I have my doubts. My memory fails me but I've seen a similar flaw with another 'what's in my bag' article. You never see the pro standing beside it. The photos are just a mock up based on information received.
 
I have never understood the rules for when to use "differ from" and "different than." An old boss of mine had a real thing about it, and all I could ever do was go on feel.

Here is what Mssrs. Strunk & White have to say. Clear as mud: "Here logic supports established usage: one thing differs from another, hence, different from. Or, other than, unlike."

I think they're saying that "different than" shouldn't exist, but my understanding is that it does. My other writing reference guides (or at least their indices) are silent. Anyone?
 
Usage Note: Different from and different than are both common in British and American English. The construction different to is chiefly British. Since the 18th century, language critics have singled out different than as incorrect, though it is well attested in the works of reputable writers. According to traditional guidelines, from is used when the comparison is between two persons or things: My book is different from (not than) yours. Different than is more acceptably used, particularly in American usage, where the object of comparison is expressed by a full clause: The campus is different than it was 20 years ago. Different from may be used with a clause if the clause starts with a conjunction and so functions as a noun: The campus is different from how it was 20 years ago. · Sometimes people interpret a simple noun phrase following different than as elliptical for a clause, which allows for a subtle distinction in meaning between the two constructions. How different this seems from Paris suggests that the object of comparison is the city of Paris itself, whereas How different this seems than Paris suggests that the object of comparison is something like "the way things were in Paris" or "what happened in Paris."

American Heritage Dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/different

Usage: -- To Differ with, Differ from. Both differ from and aiffer with are used in reference to opinions; as, "I differ from you or with you in that opinion."" In all other cases, expressing simple unlikeness, differ from is used; as, these two persons or things differ entirely from each other.

Severely punished, not for differing from us in opinion, but for committing a nuisance. --Macaulay.

Davidson, whom on a former occasion we quoted, to differ from him. --M. Arnold.

Much as I differ from him concerning an essential part of the historic basis of religion. --Gladstone.

I differ with the honorable gentleman on that point. --Brougham.

If the honorable gentleman differs with me on that subject, I differ as heartily with him, and shall always rejoice to differ. --Canning.

AHD
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/differ


Help?
 
Wow--sort of, particularly the Paris thing. I'd always gotten the sense that it also mattered how much. As in, this differs from one other thing but is different than a multiplicity of things. I guess not.

Thank you!
 
I used it as a conjunction! (well, I didn't actually think about it, but it seems to work that way).

since   /sɪns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sins] Show IPA Pronunciation

–adverb
1. from then till now (often prec. by ever): He was elected in 1978 and has been president ever since.
2. between a particular past time and the present; subsequently: She at first refused, but has since consented.
3. ago; before now: long since.
–preposition 4. continuously from or counting from: It has been warm since noon.
5. between a past time or event and the present: There have been many changes since the war.
–conjunction
6. in the period following the time when: He has written once since he left.
7. continuously from or counting from the time when: He has been busy since he came.
8. because; inasmuch as: Since you're already here, you might as well stay.
Click to expand...

Here's my problem, Small--"because" is causation only. Duh. "Since" can also have a temporal meaning. It's not as precise and can cause confusion.

For instance, "Since I was sitting on the bench, you walked by." Now, did you walk by BECAUSE I was sitting on the bench, or merely at some point after I began sitting there? See?

"While," unlike "although" also has temporal suggestions and can be similarly confusing.
 
ClairefromClare said:
If I win, I'll let Smallville have it because he is so great and awesome.
Click to expand...

There! Fixed it for ya!

Although, while "since" may be "confusing" it is not incorrect.
 
Smallville said:
There! Fixed it for ya!

Although, while "since" may be "confusing" it is not incorrect.
Click to expand...

Better. As to incorrect/confusing/whatever, I simply prefer being precise.

I could always go off about "that" versus "which." A biggie.
 
Wow, one of those could be Claire's next avatar! That is, if she could ever give up Helen.
 
MO_Hacker said:
badgegold.jpg



I've got nothing to add to this thread in regards to grammar or usage, just thought these were appropriate.
Click to expand...

Love it, love it, love it! I just don't have time to change my avatar at this precise moment. [also I can't remember how to save it as a jpeg, but even I can get past that one--I hope]
 
Right click it and save picture as. It's already a jpeg.
 
Smallville said:
Right click it and save picture as. It's already a jpeg.
Click to expand...

Duh--for some idiotic reason, I was trying to cut & paste. Thanks again, Hacker! I love my new avatar.
 
'Single Quotes' - Their Use & Meaning

'Single Quotes' - Their Use & Meaning

What is the purpose of single quotes and what are the rules for their use??

I was PM'ing ClairefromClare about this. Claire did a quick search and could only find them called single quotes.

At Claire's suggestion I've thrown this question open to everyone.

It was bugging me somewhat because there must be distinct rules for their use. Why I say that is because I've noticed the attention grabbling headlines of the tabloids usually involve the use of single quotes.

For example, Bono tells 'why I had an affair with David Beckham'. It is a headline made up by me for present purposes but indicative of what is found in tabloids. Of course, when the article is viewed, it involves some unidentified 'friend' telling all, which in reality was a complete fabrication by the publisher. If single quotes had the same use as inverted commas / quotation marks, the tabloids would be sued for defamation over headlines such as these.

I've just looked at Wikipedia & the closest I could find to answering the conundrum is "However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation".

So it appears that in the example I provided, single quotes are used to indicate paraphrased text. In other words, they paraphrase what the unidentified 'friend' has said. Unfortunately, where tabloid headlines are concerned, the general populace don't recognise the fine distinction, think it's a direct quote and buy a magazine with made-up drivel as a story.

Claire said that the rule she learned for single quotes is that they distinguish quoted material within a quote. As in, I was just saying to Julie, "Brad told me, 'Bono lusts after Beckham.'" And Claire recalled being chewed out by a long-ago English teacher for using a single quote instead of an underline around a book title.

Can anyone shed any light on the rules (and purpose) for the use of single quotes?
 
TheNewBrad said:
Claire said that the rule she learned for single quotes is that they distinguish quoted material within a quote. As in, I was just saying to Julie, "Brad told me, 'Bono lusts after Beckham.'" And Claire recalled being chewed out by a long-ago English teacher for using a single quote instead of an underline around a book title.
Click to expand...

^^^^ that I the rule I learned. Single quotes designate a quote within a quote. For example:

  • Johnny said "I saw a performance of Hamlet last night and I was confused by the line 'to be, or not to be' and it has been bothering me ever since."

TheNewBrad said:
I've just looked at Wikipedia & the closest I could find to answering the conundrum is "However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence, for example in philosophical essays, is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation or a quotation where grammar, pronouns or plurality have been changed in order to fit the sentence containing the quotation".
Click to expand...

^^^ I've never heard that rule. I was always taught that paraphrased information is not quoted and that brackets are used within a quote to designate changes to the text for purposes of clarity (i.e. grammar, pronouns, or plurality). For example.

  • Johnny told me that he saw a performance of Hamlet and that he was confused by a line in the play and that it has been bothering him ever since.
  • Johnny said "I saw a performance of [William Shakespeare's play] Hamlet last night and I was confused by the line 'to be, or not to be' and [the ambiguity of the line] has been bothering me ever since."
Oh, and as an aside, I personally sometimes use quotes instead of underlines for book titles when posting on the internet to avoid confusion. That is, underlining usually indicates hyperlinked text on the net.
 
Harry Longshanks said:
^^^^ that I the rule I learned. Single quotes designate a quote within a quote. ....
Oh, and as an aside, I personally sometimes use quotes instead of underlines for book titles when posting on the internet to avoid confusion. That is, underlining usually indicates hyperlinked text on the net.
Click to expand...

Thanks Harry. The mystery of the structure of tabloid headlines continues though and their use of single quotes. I'll just leave it. No need to agonise over it on this forum.
 
No time for that last, but see BraDDe!--I told you this was right up Harry's line. He even agrees with me on single/double quotes, which is VERY scary.

Harry--you were up way too late.
 
Sadly, I am rather excited to see that this site hosts a grammar and usage thread. The inflexible, small-minded hobgoblin of a Scottish grammarian in me loves these rules, all the more so when their application adds only some marginal degree of clarity and sense. The thrill of the hunt for the dangling participle, the missing final serial comma, the restrictive "which," the objective "who," the n-dash bearing the burdens of an m-, the non-parallel syntactical structure lies in the sadistic pleasure one takes in returning a red-stained copy to a colleague, even in those instances -- or should I say, particularly in those instances -- when the edited copy enforces merely one's own usage preferences and picadillos upon a hapless subordinate. It is a way to inform those who find themselves subject to my grammatical whims, while politely saying nothing of the kind, that indeed mine is the superior mind and sharper eye, that in seeking to reach beyond their grasp they fall far short of my own. These episodes justify one's place in the social order, and elevate one beyond the dull and lifeless tasks of a scrivener.

Alright, that was some serious self-mockery there, and probably is amusing only to me. But if you worked with me, you'd appreciate the humor. That said, I do look forward to watching this thread. So here's a blue, ink-like blob to express my pleasure. :blob:
 
worst_shot_ever said:
Sadly, I am rather excited to see that this site hosts a grammar and usage thread. The inflexible, small-minded hobgoblin of a Scottish grammarian in me loves these rules, all the more so when their application adds only some marginal degree of clarity and sense. The thrill of the hunt for the dangling participle, the missing final serial comma, the restrictive "which," the objective "who," the n-dash bearing the burdens of an m-, the non-parallel syntactical structure lies in the sadistic pleasure one takes in returning a red-stained copy to a colleague, even in those instances -- or should I say, particularly in those instances -- when the edited copy enforces merely one's own usage preferences and picadillos upon a hapless subordinate. It is a way to inform those who find themselves subject to my grammatical whims, while politely saying nothing of the kind, that indeed mine is the superior mind and sharper eye, that in seeking to reach beyond their grasp they fall far short of my own. These episodes justify one's place in the social order, and elevate one beyond the dull and lifeless tasks of a scrivener.

Alright, that was some serious self-mockery there, and probably is amusing only to me. But if you worked with me, you'd appreciate the humor. That said, I do look forward to watching this thread. So here's a blue, ink-like blob to express my pleasure. :blob:
Click to expand...

I'm in love!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top