|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 11:37:45 GMT
Sue, I was slightly surprised that semi-colons should be banned from fairy tales, although I do see why the teacher might want to avoid the use of long and complex sentences. Had your child been taught the use of semi-colons yet? I would have thought that, since many fairy tales were written/translated by the Victorians, there would be a plethora; their use was much more common then. However, out of curiosity I looked up a translation of Grimm's Fairy Tales and conducted a page search for semi-colons in the first ten pages. Only one tale (the first) contained one semi-colon. Alan, when I was younger (or, as Bily Joel put it, when I wore a younger man's clothes ), I used to delight in writing long and complex sentences, using context, punctuation, syntex, etc., to convey the correct meaning. As I have got older, I have become more and more a fan of shorter, simpler sentences, so that the intended meaning is as clear as possible. After all, when we are writing advisory reports for clients, we do not want to leave any room for amiguity.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 29, 2008 12:54:51 GMT
> I used to delight in writing long and complex sentences <
I think I mentioned on "the other" board that, when I worked in Hong Kong, I once received a typewritten report from one of my colleagues, who was Chinese but well able to write English. He'd had fun writing the report and after a while, while reading one sentence, I stopped and searched - forwards - for the full stop. I found that it came forty-three typed lines after the start of the sentence. Further investigation revealed that it was entirely grammatically correct, and correctly punctuated, but - and I checked again! - entirely one clause! (With side-shoots such as ", more or less," and "according to the informant's neighbour's elderly second-cousin's brother")!
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 12:59:59 GMT
> I used to delight in writing long and complex sentences < I think I mentioned on "the other" board that, when I worked in Hong Kong, I once received a typewritten report from one of my colleagues, who was Chinese but well able to write English. He'd had fun writing the report and after a while, while reading one sentence, I stopped and searched - forwards - for the full stop. I found that it came forty-three typed lines after the start of the sentence. Further investigation revealed that it was entirely grammatically correct, and correctly punctuated, but - and I checked again! - entirely one clause! (With side-shoots such as ", more or less," and "according to the informant's neighbour's elderly second-cousin's brother")! Very James Joyce. Should "second-cousin" be hyphenated? It's a genuine query, as I don't think I have ever written it down.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 29, 2008 13:31:17 GMT
> Should "second-cousin" be hyphenated? < Hey - I'm not actually sure what one IS, let alone whether it needs a hyphen.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 13:49:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 13:52:03 GMT
I found that it came forty-three typed lines after the start of the sentence. Further investigation revealed that it was entirely grammatically correct, and correctly punctuated Very impressive. I would have liked to have seen that!
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 29, 2008 14:00:54 GMT
A second cousin to you is a child of one of your parents' first cousins. Or stated another way: Second cousins have in common a set of great grandparents (first cousins have in common a set of grandparents; siblings have in common a set of parents).
I wouldn't hyphenate second cousin unless it's being used somehow adjectively.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on May 29, 2008 14:13:00 GMT
> Should "second-cousin" be hyphenated? < Hey - I'm not actually sure what one IS, let alone whether it needs a hyphen. One's cousin's children, I believe. Perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on May 29, 2008 14:14:18 GMT
A second cousin to you is a child of one of your parents' first cousins. Or stated another way: Second cousins have in common a set of great grandparents (first cousins have in common a set of grandparents; siblings have in common a set of parents).
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 14:17:35 GMT
Oh. I thought that was "cousins once removed". Or have I got it the wrong way round? Your second cousin once removed is your second cousin's child, I believe. And your child would be that person's third cousin. I think of first, second, etc., cousins as like rungs on a ladder, and the 'removed' bit is then a diagonal, if that makes any sense (it's better as a mental picture).
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 14:37:42 GMT
I agree with Pete. First/second/third cousins are at the same level of a family tree (i.e. first cousins inhabit one level, second cousins inhabit another level, etc). Cousins "removed" straddle different levels. Diagonal indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on May 29, 2008 15:10:27 GMT
I agree with Pete. First/second/third cousins are at the same level of a family tree (i.e. first cousins inhabit one level, second cousins inhabit another level, etc). Cousins "removed" straddle different levels. Diagonal indeed. Er, Paul, you might want to re-read your first sentence there. It looks to me like your bit in brackets contradicts, rather than explains, your point. But I stand corrected on the whole concept: clearly I had the two terms transposed in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 29, 2008 15:12:30 GMT
What - he doesn't agree with Pete? ( ;D )
Another case of "we know what it means, from context, but actually is ambiguous/wrong". Perhaps we should say ".. are each at one level ..."?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 29, 2008 15:16:02 GMT
> each at one level <
No ... no ... no ...
On thirty-second thoughts, that could mean that each of the second cousins must be on a different level ... or that each of them may not occupy two levels. Ooh, this language stuff is hard.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 16:41:20 GMT
> each at one level < No ... no ... no ... On thirty-second thoughts, that could mean that each of the second cousins must be on a different level ... or that each of them may not occupy two levels. Ooh, this language stuff is hard. But not as hard as going to a family wedding full of second and third cousins and all their removes / offspring! Am I the only person who is fed up with distant relatives coming up and saying, "Do you know who I am?"? I have developed a series of facetious replies but I never use them, as it's never the right occasion. Examples range from "Do I care?" to "If you've forgotten your own name, you must have been at the bar for too long." ;D
|
|