|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 9, 2020 0:22:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 12, 2020 2:52:07 GMT
Found on the ABC (AU) News site in a story about a certain (erstwile?) royal couple: the Sussexs'. Ugh! Surely Sussexes'.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 12, 2020 2:56:53 GMT
Very interesting – literally – LJH. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 12, 2020 14:23:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 12, 2020 15:23:49 GMT
Found on the ABC (AU) News site in a story about a certain (erstwile?) royal couple: the Sussexs'. Ugh! Surely Sussexes'. Index – indices Sussex – Sussices ⁉️
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Aug 12, 2020 18:50:11 GMT
I’d heard of one - but only because an episode of Rosemary and Thyme, back in 2004, was entitled The Gongoozlers.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 12, 2020 20:48:44 GMT
All new to me, LJH. I'll print the list and wait for an occasion when I might use one or more.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 12, 2020 21:08:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 12, 2020 23:02:25 GMT
Simon Whistler on split infinitives. (Note SW’s mispronunciation of syntax as "sine-tacks". Pronunciation of names and even some ordinary words is not Simon’s strong point – but at least he knows and admits that.) In the comments was this quotation from Douglas Adams's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "To boldly split infinitives that no man had split before". Love your work, DNA!
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 14, 2020 22:24:21 GMT
I don’t care what anyone says – the English language is beautiful and split infinities are ugly. Also, I have still not seen any definitive evidence of the assertion that the custom of avoiding split infinitives arises from copying Latin grammar rather than a simple continuance of long established practice.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Aug 16, 2020 21:55:50 GMT
I don’t care what anyone says – the English language is beautiful and split infinities are ugly. You'll get no argument from me on that point, LJH. Unlike in most European languages, English infinitives are composed of two words, which makes it possible for them to be split, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable or necessary to do so. On another matter, the UK Government has created the post of Clandestine Channel Threat Commander. As far as I can tell, the Government didn't consider it advisable to create any hyphens to accompany the post's title, so I find myself wondering where the clandestine channel is or, assuming it to be the English Channel, why the World's busiest shipping channel has suddenly become clandestine. I also ask myself why we need a Threat Commander anyway; aren't there enough problems in life without HM Government employing someone to command threats on its behalf? Perhaps, though, the title refers to a clandestine commander of threats to the English Channel - such threats could include setting fire to it (à la Goons) or draining it without permission - but why does he or she need to operate in a clandestine manner?
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Aug 24, 2020 22:06:49 GMT
Not much going on at the moment. I have been spending time listening to ball-by-ball commentaries provided by the BBC Test Match Special team on the cricket matches between England and the West Indies and with Pakistan. I have noticed that most, if not all, commentators have adopted the word “batter” instead of the traditional “batsman” but continue to say “twelfth man” and “third man” for those rôles even when talking about women’s teams. I am not sure what I think about all this. On the one hand, I am usually a traditionalist but, on the other hand, I support “women’s equality” and have no wish to offend anyone. I don’t know what women cricketers think beyond the article below by Raf Nicholson (Dr Rafaelle Nicholson of Bournemouth University, I think). Does anyone here have any thoughts? crickether.com/2017/02/16/thoughts-on-the-batter-batsman-debate/
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Aug 24, 2020 22:56:26 GMT
Not that I have the remotest interest in cricket, but I'd have thought that "batsman" and "batswoman" both sound a damned sight better, and more traditional, than "batter" (which sounds like something in which one fries fish).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 24, 2020 22:59:12 GMT
[...] Does anyone here have any thoughts? [...] None related to cricket (it's one of those tedious ball games, isn't it, that people sleep through when it's on the telly?) but I have no problem with replacing existing gender-specific / female-excluding terms provided they don't become silly – like sewer (!) for seamtress. The use of batter for batsman doesn't create quite such a silly option, though it might be confused with the stuff of fish 'n' chips. "Here comes the new batter" – and people hold out their snack boxes for a serve. Meanwhile, COVID appears to be moving toward verb form. I heard it twice yesterday: "I (We / our business) have been covided out of the market." PS: It seems that Twod and I are posting at the same time from opposite sides of the globe and share similar attitudes to cricket and batter. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Aug 25, 2020 14:52:18 GMT
The UK, I read, is experiencing “unseasonably” strong winds. I guess this is a formation matching “unreasonably”, but it doesn’t really work, does it.
Unreasonably: in a manner that cannot be reasoned. That doesn’t work for season ...
|
|