|
Post by Twoddle on May 9, 2018 22:12:06 GMT
Delete “their” and it becomes a proper noun but I was careful to include it. So you were, LJH - my error. That being so, I would have given it a small "g", in the same way that I'd distinguish between "Mother" and "my mother". I wouldn't capitalise "he" or "him" in sentences such as, "For he is all-powerful" or, "All glory be to him", either. Come to think of it, it's unlikely I'd write those sentences anywhere other than here. And if I choose to draw a representation of the prophet Mohammed, I'll damned well do so. (But, as I can't draw so much as a straight line with a ruler, I won't.)
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 9, 2018 23:58:22 GMT
Grammatically, I agree with you, Twoddle but I think most people would think of their own particular deity as having a capital initial letter. I may be technically wrong but I think of it as a courtesy to those who sincerely believe and I recall that splendid comedian Dave Allen who, at the end of his act, toasted his audience with the wish, ”May your God go with you”. I always “heard” a capital letter when he said this.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 10, 2018 9:32:20 GMT
Grammatically, I agree with you, Twoddle but I think most people would think of their own particular deity as having a capital initial letter. I may be technically wrong but I think of it as a courtesy to those who sincerely believe and I recall that splendid comedian Dave Allen who, at the end of his act, toasted his audience with the wish, ”May your God go with you”. I always “heard” a capital letter when he said this. To paraphrase Richard Dawkins (because I can't find the exact quotation), we're all atheists in respect of thousands of the gods of past and present religions; the only difference between the Pope and me is that I'm an atheist in respect of one more god than he is. Should we capitalise the "g" in all of those gods - "the God called Zeus" (for example)? If so, is Zeus's wife a Goddess - rather than a goddess - in the interests of sexual equality?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 10, 2018 11:50:55 GMT
I think it’s matter of style. I think “pope” should only be capitalsed when referring to a pope by name as “Pope John Paul” and I would apply a similar “rule” to king, foreign secretary, mayor and prime minister, for example. So the queen of the United Kingdom is Elizabeth II. But Queen Elizabeth is the monarch of the United Kingdom. If I had a god, which I do not, he or she would be my God.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 10, 2018 18:26:09 GMT
I have problems deciding whether some nouns are proper nouns or common nouns, and I rather fancy there's a grey area involved. To take your example of "queen", LJH, I agree that "Queen Elizabeth" is a proper noun and should be capitalised, because "Queen" forms a part of her name. At the other extreme, in "Elizabeth is a queen" it's a common noun where Elizabeth is one queen among several. I'd apply that also to "Elizabeth is my queen", because there are queens other than my one. However, I'm not so sure when the definite article is used; in "The Queen" I'm referring to one queen only, and in effect that's her name, so I think it falls within the scope of a proper noun and should be capitalised. Similarly, I'd capitalise "the" Pope, Foreign Secretary etc., but not "a" pope ... ".
If I had a god, he'd be God, but he'd also be my god; God, my god, as one might say.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 16, 2018 22:52:44 GMT
I am on holiday in Canada and presently in the francophone province of Québec. I hve been intrigued to notice several “hybrid” French/English place names such as St-Cyrille-de-Wendover, St-Germain-de-Grantham and St-Louis-de-Blandford. Perhaps, if I were beter educated, I could say something useful about this but I know Blandford in Dorset (in the UK) very well and have never heard of any association with Saint Louis. Its parish church is dedicated to St Peter and Saint Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 17, 2018 12:25:14 GMT
I am on holiday in Canada and presently in the francophone province of Québec. I hve been intrigued to notice several “hybrid” French/English place names such as St-Cyrille-de-Wendover, St-Germain-de-Grantham and St-Louis-de-Blandford. Perhaps, if I were beter educated, I could say something useful about this but I know Blandford in Dorset (in the UK) very well and have never heard of any association with Saint Louis. Its parish church is dedicated to St Peter and Saint Paul. According to Wikipedia, St-Cyrille merged with neighbouring Wendover in 1982 to form the municipality of Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover, so I'd guess that the other hybrids were formed in a similar fashion. I wonder how the locals pronounce the names; do they say the first bit in French - "San Zyairman" and the second in English, do you suppose?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 17, 2018 20:03:10 GMT
>> I wonder how the locals pronounce the names; do they say the first bit in French - "San Zyairman" and the second in English, do you suppose? <<
According to my Québécois guide, the first part of the name is locally pronounced French-style but the “English” part is usually pronounced in the English way although it varies in different parts of the province. In the case of St-Louis-de-Blandford, the Blandford bit is English style — Bland-fd.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 18, 2018 17:16:32 GMT
I'm suffering from royal-wedding overload to the point where I may have to hide in a wood with no mobile 'phone for twenty-four hours to get away from the continual, unrelenting, sycophantic drivel. Even a news item about Brexit would be a welcome relief, and God knows that's bad enough!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on May 18, 2018 23:34:27 GMT
I'm suffering from royal-wedding overload to the point where I may have to hide in a wood with no mobile 'phone for twenty-four hours to get away from the continual, unrelenting, sycophantic drivel. Even a news item about Brexit would be a welcome relief, and God knows that's bad enough! Twod, even this far away in the Antipodes it's hard to avoid. I'm glad I don't live with a TV or the social media: it seems to be all pervasive. And soon we'll have another Royal Baby to "celebrate". An expensively quaint nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 19, 2018 0:35:44 GMT
Cheer up, guys. Millions of people around the world think that the marriage to be celebrated on Saturday, is neither sycophantic drivel nor quaint nonesense. Here in Canada, CBC News Netwok will be broadcasting live from London from four o’clock in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on May 19, 2018 6:32:38 GMT
Oh, I don’t think Twod was suggesting that the marriage, or even the wedding, was sycophantic or drivel - it’s the reaction to it, in the media and elsewhere, that seems over the top.
But, yes, I’ll watch it!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on May 19, 2018 10:06:37 GMT
Two people are getting married. One is extremely rich, being paid oodles by the UK public only because of accident of birth. The other, so I'm led to believe, is an actress. Good luck to them - they may well need it, both of them coming from highly dysfunctional families - but why should it be of any significant interest to me? As Dave suggests, it's the sycophantic, ubiquitous, overwhelming reaction to it that I don't understand and to which I object.
For example, the BBC is required by its charter to give balanced reporting on its news programmes, yet it's been inundating its news broadcasts with royal wedding, royal wedding, and scarcely anything but bloody royal-wedding, and in the most nauseatingly obsequious manner possible. Where's the balance? Shouldn't equal time be given to the views of the large number of republicans among the population, those of us who don't give a monkey's stuff about the unelected royal-family?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on May 20, 2018 4:02:31 GMT
I am happy to acknowledge having only a passing interest in royal weddings but one can almost hear the “only” in Twoddle’s post when he says “The other, so I'm led to believe, is an actress”. Prince Harry is certainly unelected but both he and Ms Markle are worthwhile and, indeed, interesting people who have done significant charitable work and who have used their fame, deserved or not, to promote many important causes. If they originate, as Twoddle suggests, from “highly dysfunctional families”, they are surely all the more entitled to admiration — and no-one can choose their family.
Canadian news analyses have spent much time discussing and positively valuing the importance of the marriage, and the form of the service, for race relations not just in the UK but even in Canada and the USA.
Many millions of people around the world have been fascinated by, and have derived great enjoyment and even some fun from, the marriage. For example, 1,700 people in Toronto paid to attend the Princess of Wales Theatre at four o'clock in the morning to witness a live broadcast of the marriage and to celebrate the occasion. And they also take pride in the choice of Brian Mulrooney’s grandchildren to carry the bride’s train.
I have almost no interest in cookery programmes, house hunting programmes and most sports but if my likes and dislikes were to be the criteria by which broadcasters select the programmes they produce, many folk would be deprived of their pleasures. Of course, if I may be allowed a tic comment, these folks’ pleasures are clearly seriously inferior to those enjoyed by those of us who went to good schools but they should not be deprived of their trivial pleasures — should they?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on May 20, 2018 8:20:17 GMT
What does “immediately” mean?
In the UK, new requirements for vehicle (MoT) testing come into effect today. Faults will be categorised: Dangerous: Fail. The vehicle is a "direct and immediate risk to road safety or has a serious impact on the environment". It must not be driven until it has been repaired. Major: Fail. The fault "may affect the vehicle's safety, put other road users at risk or have an impact on the environment". The car, van or motorcycle must be repaired immediately. Minor: Pass. A defect has "no significant effect on the safety of the vehicle or impact on the environment". It must be repaired as soon as possible
Presumably, the intention is that “major” faults must be attended to with greater urgency that “minor” faults - but if minor faults are dealt with “as soon as possible”, how will it be possible for “immediately” to come any sooner?
|
|