|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 17:25:39 GMT
Perhaps we should say ".. are each at one level ..."? Not sure that helps! Isn't it still ambiguous? I realised what I wrote had at least two meanings, and the bit in brackets was supposed to explain which I intended. I still can't work out how to say it simply! I think Pete's right: it needs a diagram. Do we all agree with this: Reds are siblings, greens are first cousins, blues are second cousins. Left green is first cousin once removed to right red. Left blue is second cousin once removed to right green. Left blue is first cousin twice removed to right red.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 17:27:31 GMT
Where's Twod, he knows all this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 17:32:01 GMT
Perhaps we should say ".. are each at one level ..."? Not sure that helps! Isn't it still ambiguous? I realised what I wrote had at least two meanings, and the bit in brackets was supposed to explain which I intended. I still can't work out how to say it simply! I think Pete's right: it needs a diagram. Do we all agree with this: Reds are siblings, greens are first cousins, blues are second cousins. Left green is first cousin once removed to right red. Left blue is second cousin once removed to right green. Left blue is first cousin twice removed to right red. Yes, this is exactly what I meant and I also read your original post this way, Paul. But the picture certainly helps, oh, exalted one.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 17:37:08 GMT
Pete, what you sow, so shall ye reap. I see your karma has improved!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 18:24:15 GMT
Oh. It's slipped back. Someone's teasing!
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 29, 2008 19:34:12 GMT
> and saying, "Do you know who I am?" <
Cue the Masggy Thatcher story: MT, as Prime Minister, visited an old-people's home and says to one old biddy "Do you know who I am?"
"No, dear - but ask Matron; she'll tell you."
|
|
|
Post by Trevor on May 29, 2008 19:43:48 GMT
Perhaps we should say ".. are each at one level ..."? Not sure that helps! Isn't it still ambiguous? I realised what I wrote had at least two meanings, and the bit in brackets was supposed to explain which I intended. I still can't work out how to say it simply! I think Pete's right: it needs a diagram. Do we all agree with this: Reds are siblings, greens are first cousins, blues are second cousins. Left green is first cousin once removed to right red. Left blue is second cousin once removed to right green. Left blue is first cousin twice removed to right red. Not sure about all of this. Surely: left green is simply nephew or niece to right red. And so on...
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 29, 2008 20:44:19 GMT
>Should "second-cousin" be hyphenated?<
Yes, definitely. (In that context, assuming that it is intended.)
It's "second-cousin's brother" = the brother of a second cousin. "Second cousin's brother" could be the second brother of a (first) cousin.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 29, 2008 22:27:23 GMT
Not sure about all of this. Surely: left green is simply nephew or niece to right red. And so on... Oh yes. Hmm ...
|
|
|
Post by Pete on May 29, 2008 23:04:30 GMT
Not sure about all of this. Surely: left green is simply nephew or niece to right red. And so on... Oh yes. Hmm ... I think on Paul's diagram we should read reds as siblings,greens as first cousins (or first-cousins) and blues as second cousins. Then a blue would be the first cousin once removed of the opposite green.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 30, 2008 2:08:58 GMT
The red to red relationship is sibling. The red to green relationship is aunt/uncle to niece/nephewThe green to green relationship is first cousins. The green to blue relationship (or vice versa) is first cousins, once removed. The red to blue relationship is great aunt/great uncle to grandnephew/grandniece (or great-nephew/great-niece). Blues' children would be third cousins. The green to purple relationship (or vice versa) is first cousin, twice removed. &c.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 30, 2008 2:31:07 GMT
Very good, Dave -- I agree completely. And I've added Blue's children.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on May 30, 2008 12:02:48 GMT
Not quite 43 lines, but I am rather fond of this little gem: EM Forster, in Abinger Harvest (p. 109), commented on sentence structure, demonstrating by his style the very phenomenon that he was criticising. It is lifted from his biography Morgan by Nicola Beauman. A sentence begins quite simply, then it undulates and expands, parentheses intervene like quickset hedges, the flowers of comparison bloom, and three fields off, like a wounded partridge, crouches the principal verb, making one wonder as one picks it up, poor little thing, whether after all it was worth such a tramp, so many guns and such expensive dogs, and what, after all, is the relation to the main subject, potted so gaily half a page back, and proving finally to have been in the accusative case.
|
|
|
Post by rickcarpenter on May 30, 2008 14:24:45 GMT
I always use the final comma if given a chance. Think of a list necessarily separated by semicolons such as:
At the zoo, there were three areas in the process of renovation: lions, tigers, and bears; birds and bees; and snakes and mongooses.
Leaving out the final semicolon and the commas in each group would make it ridiculously and incorrectly:
At the zoo, there were three areas in the process of renovation: lions, tigers and bears; birds and bees and snakes and mongooses.
Spoken, it would naturally be [highlighting only the punctuation in question]: ...lions (wordbreak) tigers (wordbreak) and bears (pause) birds and bees (pause) and snakes and mongooses.
Why should the the final wordbreaks or pauses be written differently than those that precede them if they are spoken with the same emphasis? If it's correct for semicolons in complex listings, for consistency's sake the same should apply to commas in simpler-constructed lists.
Rick
Q: is it "mongeese?"
|
|
|
Post by Barry on May 30, 2008 14:44:16 GMT
Sheesh! Diagrams, yet - I'm impressed. And, yes, I agree with the final ruling about generational (removed) differences. I've often wondered, however, how it works with non-blood relatives, and if there's a difference.
A friend of mine (weirdly, we met socially in our 20s, and realised we were distantly related) is my uncle's nephew. My uncle is my uncle by virtue of being married to my aunt (my mother's sister). So, my friend's mother is the sister of the man married to my mother's sister; how are we related?
|
|