|
Post by Vadim on Jun 26, 2008 7:24:47 GMT
I once shared a house with a hooker who acquired a Staffordshire Terrier pup (which ate all the curtains and rugs!) The housemate aptly named the dog "Phyllis: short for syphillis". Inevitably, housemate contracted her pup's name. As long as it wasn't FROM the puppy!
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Jun 26, 2008 13:59:19 GMT
From I got it from Agnes (Tom Lehrer)
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 27, 2008 3:25:40 GMT
Perhaps that's where we got the term sick puppy? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jun 27, 2008 9:26:04 GMT
Perhaps that's where we got the term sick puppy? ;D This really does highlight Paul's statement of "two drunks hijacking threads" ;D. (Except there's three!)
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 27, 2008 10:15:37 GMT
Vadim, there are three, or even there' re three.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 27, 2008 12:10:11 GMT
I'd say there's three, actually.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 27, 2008 13:44:55 GMT
So would I.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 27, 2008 13:46:32 GMT
I'd say there's three, actually. And that's likely what I'd say, too, in casual speech, but I don't think I'd write it unless presenting a quoted speech unaltered. No doubt I'll slip up now and write it in my next post - and wear the resultant egg. (One of the reasons I decided to use Verbivore as my business name and general sobriquet is that as a verbivore eats words, being one would legitimise my occasional need to eat some of my own!) ;D
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 13:56:29 GMT
Honey, and milk, and sugar: there is three - Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost, 1595 (This information is presented as is. No warranty given or implied)
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 27, 2008 14:07:40 GMT
Honey, and milk, and sugar: there is three - Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost, 1595 (This information is presented as is. No warranty given or implied) For all the extra minor "wisdom" in our knowing such things, I fail to see what relevance Shakespeare's or the King James Bible's (both 400+ years ago) style of English has as a measure of "correctness" in our 21st century English. Three generations back - at most - is perhaps as far as current relevance can be stretched (suggests this liberal traditionalist-cum-prescriptivist leaning nascent descriptivist). Certainly the English of my great-grandparents (mid-19th century) was quite different from mine, though both (more or less) "correct" for their times.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 14:10:12 GMT
I think it's relevant, because it shows how long the usage has existed. If you don't think it's relevant, that's fine. The link explains the history of the usage in detail.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 27, 2008 15:34:30 GMT
Well, goofy did say "This information is presented as is. No warranty given or implied"! Nice to see some humour there, goofy.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 27, 2008 17:53:35 GMT
I'd say there's three, actually. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 27, 2008 17:57:53 GMT
I'd say there's three, actually. Why? My thoughts entirely, Pete. I often hear people say it, because (I suppose) it's easier to articulate than "There're three", but I can't see any reason to write it when it's blatantly incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by goofy on Jun 27, 2008 19:01:42 GMT
I say "there's three" as well. Why? That's just the way my language works. I wouldn't say it's incorrect, I'd say it's informal.
|
|