|
Post by Barry on May 26, 2008 22:08:12 GMT
I'm being philanthropic (or something). Can I suggest that, if there is further discussion about the OC (as many will know, I refuse to acknowledge its canonisation), it might take place here?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 26, 2008 23:13:10 GMT
From: How could I have done thatPete, We just gotta convert you to the HOC! OK, I give up. ;D Google has Houston Orienteering Club, the Housing Opportunities Commission and a Haskell to Objective-C binding. I assume you mean none of the above! Aha! Thanks, Barry. I have always used it sparingly. In general, with a simple list, I think it's usually unnecessary, as in: "Red, yellow, blue and green", for example. On occasion, I might use it as a way of emphasising the last item on the list, as if there were a slight pause before the last item. For example: "My new girlfriend is tall, slim, beautiful, and rich". So, to me, that emphasises the last entry as being at least as important as the others, if not more so. Almost like a punchline. In the entry that occasioned Tone's comment, it might look like I used a couple of Oxford commas, as there were interpolated phrases immediately preceding the last entry in a list, as in: "The economist thought for a bit, asked for time to do some research, and came back two weeks later". I have seen this debated many times on the old APS forum and I am well aware that there are strong feelings both for and against the Oxford comma, so I look forward to some more views!
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 27, 2008 12:41:59 GMT
The argument seems to be between two camps:
(1) those believing that a list of 3-or-more items must ALWAYS be stated as A, B, and C (2) those believing that the final comma should be used sparingly, where it gives a special nuance to the meaning.
(I happen to be in the second camp; Tone is our champion for the first camp.)
The problem is that the "special nuances" understood by camp followers of the second variety are unseen by those in the first camp.
There are problems with either pattern. Mostly, I'd agree with Pete, but admit that without context I'm stuck as to whether the colours refer to four or three items, with the third item being coloured blue and green.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriel-Ernest on May 27, 2008 13:19:56 GMT
Pete,
It is my contention that HOC stands for Hoary Old Chestnut. And you have now set that particular hare running amongst the pigeons again, and you only have yourself to blame if they come home to roost. (Oh! Mix those metaphors man!)
I am definitely of the “camp followers of the second variety”. (But not in the limp-wristed kind of way, of course.)
G-E.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 13:42:17 GMT
Pete, It is my contention that HOC stands for Hoary Old Chestnut. And you have now set that particular hare running amongst the pigeons again, and you only have yourself to blame if they come home to roost. (Oh! Mix those metaphors man!) I am definitely of the “camp followers of the second variety”. (But not in the limp-wristed kind of way, of course.) G-E. Yup, you're right about HOC but Tone kicked it off in another thread. ;D I think it's a very interesting debate, although in the past I have merely followed the posts rather than setting out my personal view.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 27, 2008 16:43:22 GMT
Camp follower of the seondnd variety here. Take that how you will!
|
|
|
Post by Dr Mildr on May 27, 2008 18:38:49 GMT
I've just read an article about retired racehorses and was wondering how many of three horses, that had become attached to each other, had died:
Sadly we have recently lost Sunny and Eddie and Monty have reacted badly.
Clearly, the plural vowel indicates that Sunny has died and the other two have been affected by this. However, I think the insertion of a comma would have made it easier to read, and less taxing on the old brain box.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 27, 2008 19:35:49 GMT
Ah, but that's a splice comma, Dr M; slightly different. The Oxford/Harvard is to separate elements of a group; the splice makes it clear that a new idea is starting after the 'and'.
|
|
|
Post by TfS on May 27, 2008 19:38:29 GMT
Sadly we have recently lost Sunny and Eddie and Monty have reacted badly.Clearly, the plural vowel indicates that Sunny has died and the other two have been affected by this. However, I think the insertion of a comma would have made it easier to read, and less taxing on the old brain box. Not to mention the mental gymnastics to try to find the "plural vowel". TfS
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 27, 2008 20:54:20 GMT
> I'm stuck as to whether the colours refer to four or three items, with the third item being coloured blue and green.<
Presactly!
And I'll remind the (potential) debate that the HOC applies also to "or", not just to "and".
I find it odd that, in much written material that I see, it will be faithfully observed when a list using "or" occurs, but then is randomly used with "and" lists.
My opinion, as I've said before, is that its (consistent) use leaves no doubt, but mayhap an annoyance to the non-users, but its absence leaves an opening for ambiguity.
And I will quote another poster here:
Once upon a time... Okay, like, a few years ago... There was a budgeting crisis. There were x amount of funds to be distributed, and three departments wanted it. Call 'em Recreation Department, Parks department, and Water Department. So, there was a sentence in the budget. It said, "The money is to be divided equally between these departments: Water, Parks and Recreation." So, the money was halved -- half to the Water Department, and half to Parks and Recreation. Of course, you can see the problem. There was a big tiff about it, but I think the Parks Department and the Recreation Department just had to deal with having only a quarter each.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 27, 2008 23:37:13 GMT
I remember that story well but I would never have read the memo that way, perhaps because I am not a user of the OC.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 28, 2008 1:01:57 GMT
It's an urban myth, anyway. No budgeting process would work like that.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 28, 2008 8:50:38 GMT
I have just read a restaurant review, which refers to a number of dishes, thus:"... serving bouillabaisse, steamed fillets of lemon sole with crab souffle and brown crab, ginger and lemongrass sauce, plus pan-fried sea bream with fresh roast tomato fondue and herb beurre blanc cream." I still can't work out where one dish ends and another starts.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 28, 2008 8:51:24 GMT
Also, what else would you fry something in, if not a pan? Shoe-fried sea bream, anybody? Finally, what about the fondue? Is it roast tomato fondue that is fresh? Is it a fondue of fresh tomatoes that have been roasted? Is it a fondue of freshly-roasted tomatoes? Or a fondue of tomates that has, itself, been freshly roasted? Am I reading too much into all of this?
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 28, 2008 9:41:06 GMT
Yes. Once you enter the doors of a restaurant, all bets on the English (and, indeed, the French) language are off.
Menus are often a strange bastard mix of languages, and stretch words/grammar in a strenuous effort to conjour the dish up in the mind. Think estate agents!
I too used to get annoyed at 'pan-fried', but if you think semiotically rather than literally, the image it conjours is one of an individual frying session (i.e. the fish isn't stuck on a griddle with 20 others); it's tailored.
|
|