Apostrophe crimes

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:08 Mon 31 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:The wonderful, updated version of Tapatalk says that I wrote the second quote there. But I must disclaim that credit and give it to its rightful recipient, the great Douglas Adams.

My post gave the same credit. The fault lies with Tapatalk.

Post by **DRT** » 23:25 Mon 31 Aug 2015

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2726&p=94570#p94570]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:Good lord.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:35 Mon 31 Aug 2015

DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2726&p=94570#p94570]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:Good lord.

What?

Post by **DRT** » 23:43 Mon 31 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2726&p=94570#p94570]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:Good lord.
What?

Just go away and think about what you have done. Then come back with a 5,000 word dissertation on capitalisation.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:48 Mon 31 Aug 2015

Is to do with capitalising non-existent supreme beings?

Post by **DRT** » 23:50 Mon 31 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:Is to do with capitalising non-existent supreme beings?

Yes. Not believing does not excuse you from using a proper noun.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:50 Mon 31 Aug 2015

Lord is not a proper noun.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 23:53 Mon 31 Aug 2015

In fact I believe it's only capitalised because of belief. Like the capitalisation of the pronouns relating to Jesus (Him, He, His). Would you correct me for not doing that?

Post by **DRT** » 23:57 Mon 31 Aug 2015

djewesbury wrote:Lord is not a proper noun.

(the) Lord is.

djewesbury wrote:In fact I believe it's only capitalised because of belief. Like the capitalisation of the pronouns relating to Jesus (Him, He, His). Would you correct me for not doing that?

My mother would be disappointed if I didn't, so yes.

Post by **DRT** » 00:00 Tue 01 Sep 2015

djewesbury wrote:In fact I believe

Is this separately report-able?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:02 Tue 01 Sep 2015

Oh god.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 00:03 Tue 01 Sep 2015

Post by **DRT** » 00:19 Tue 01 Sep 2015

djewesbury wrote:Oh god.

djewesbury wrote:

Jewesbury! You might think you are funny but all you are doing is wasting the time of your classmates.

Flashman, bring pointy hat and the woolly underpants!

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:37 Fri 04 Sep 2015

This thread has not previously awarded a commendation to Harry Styles of One Direction (reputedly, for those not au fait with that which passes for modern culture, a band making popular music), but one is now due. Good work sir.

Post by **jdaw1** » 08:52 Mon 07 Sep 2015

Christopher Sandamas, The Chief Clerk to The Queen, wrote:

I would have used neither element of punctuation. Would this have been my error?

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:32 Mon 07 Sep 2015

• A whistle-blowing mechanism allows anonymous reports of misbehaviour.
• A whistleblowing mechanism allows anonymous reports of misbehaviour.
Preference?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 20:34 Mon 07 Sep 2015

Whistleblowers is one word. Whistleblowing may as well be.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 00:36 Tue 08 Sep 2015

A whistle blower and a whistleblower are not the same thing. Based on the context of the question, I would assume one word if said word exists.

Though I lean toward filing it alongside incentivizer.

Post by **jdaw1** » 07:36 Tue 08 Sep 2015

Thank you gentleman. One word it is.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:04 Fri 11 Sep 2015

What is the antonym of the adverb derived from the name of the author of the Picture of Dorian Gray.

After some discussion of temptation I typed “Unwildeianly resisted”, which, on re-reading, was a self-evident abomination. For which reason, should I be tempted?

Post by **PhilW** » 14:48 Fri 11 Sep 2015

You need to Calme down, perhaps?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 13:18 Mon 14 Sep 2015

I do not believe that an antonymic adverb derived from a proper name should be allowed. 'In a most un-Wildean way' would be much preferable, with the hyphen, since the name is still a name even in an adjective.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:39 Mon 14 Sep 2015

djewesbury wrote:In a most un-Wildean way

Clunky. I like neither. “Un-Wildeianly”?

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:40 Mon 14 Sep 2015

Next question: in a formal document being written in unpretentious modern British English, “formulæ” or “formulae”? I instinctively typed the former, and the spell-checker wanted the latter.

Post by **DRT** » 21:49 Mon 14 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Next question: in a formal document being written in unpretentious modern British English, “formulæ” or “formulae”? I instinctively typed the former, and the spell-checker wanted the latter.

The spell checker automatically removes pretentious behaviour.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:13 Mon 14 Sep 2015

DRT wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Next question: in a formal document being written in unpretentious modern British English, “formulæ” or “formulae”? I instinctively typed the former, and the spell-checker wanted the latter.
The spell checker automatically removes pretentious behaviour.

The spell-checker marks “smooths” as wrong, and also marks wrong the newly-fashionable-but-still-incorrect “smoothes”. Microsoft Word spell checker versus Daniel Jewesbury: who would you trust?

Post by **DRT** » 00:07 Tue 15 Sep 2015

"æ" has no relevant usage in modern English writing. Put you pretentious Cambridge education away and move on.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 00:43 Tue 15 Sep 2015

DRT wrote:"æ" has no relevant usage in modern English writing.

+1

Even though we have a product in the queue that uses it, which has caused no end of problems in typesetting.

Post by **PhilW** » 08:18 Tue 15 Sep 2015

DRT wrote:"æ" has no relevant usage in modern English writing.

+1. I can see no need for use of ligatures; in this case "formulas" or "formulae" of which I would use the latter.

DRT wrote:Put you pretentious Cambridge education away and move on.

I believe you meant "your" (more a typo than a crime, but since we're conveniently already in the crimes thread...).

Post by **DRT** » 08:34 Tue 15 Sep 2015

PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:Put you pretentious Cambridge education away and move on.
I believe you meant "your" (more a typo than a crime, but since we're conveniently already in the crimes thread...).

If typos are now a crime I plead guilty as charged

Post by **PhilW** » 09:03 Tue 15 Sep 2015

DRT wrote:If typos are now a crime I plead guilty as charged

Your sentence is to bring an excellent bottle of Dow '55 to a tasting in September 2015; this sentence is fully commuted based on port served (and thank you!).

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:12 Tue 15 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Next question: in a formal document being written in unpretentious modern British English, “formulæ” or “formulae”? I instinctively typed the former, and the spell-checker wanted the latter.

By general consensus my instinct over-ruled: “formulae” it is.

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:13 Tue 15 Sep 2015

PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:If typos are now a crime I plead guilty as charged
Your sentence is to bring an excellent bottle of Dow '55 to a tasting in September 2015; this sentence is fully commuted based on port served (and thank you!).

Careful Mr Wakely: you have set a precedent. You have determined the penalty for your next typo.

Post by **PhilW** » 09:36 Tue 15 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Careful xxxxxxxxx: you have set a precedent. You have determined the penalty for your next typo.

I know; I anticipate that the courts would realise how quickly the world would run out of '55 based on such a ridiculous rule, and therefore the sentence would not stand up under appeal.

Post by **PhilW** » 15:58 Tue 15 Sep 2015

Worse, while reading a reply to a question I posted on another forum, I see I made the exact same typo on the same day. My righteous pedantry is utterly destroyed and my ignominy complete.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:54 Wed 16 Sep 2015

Entail?
• <This> might need to happen, perhaps entailing <changes> in <another thing>.
Entail? Pretentious? (Qui, moi?) What word should be substituted for “entailing”?

Post by **flash_uk** » 21:57 Wed 16 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Entail?
• <This> might need to happen, perhaps entailing <changes> in <another thing>.
Entail? Pretentious? (Qui, moi?) What word should be substituted for “entailing”?

Requiring

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 22:05 Wed 16 Sep 2015

flash_uk wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Entail?
• <This> might need to happen, perhaps entailing <changes> in <another thing>.
Entail? Pretentious? (Qui, moi?) What word should be substituted for “entailing”?
Requiring

Or prompting, or forcing, or causing ... all depending on preferred tone of voice.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:07 Wed 16 Sep 2015

flash_uk wrote:Requiring

Glenn E. wrote:Or prompting, or forcing, or causing ... all depending on preferred tone of voice.

All good. But is “entailing” bad?

Post by **DRT** » 05:15 Thu 17 Sep 2015

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:53 Thu 17 Sep 2015

"entailing" is a little archaic and therefore slightly pretentious but not to the extent that I would change my text unless trying to influence Jeremy Corbyn. It is an exact choice of word intended to convey a precise meaning.

If corresponding with someone who may be less well educated, try "needing".

As an aside, connected to but not directly relevant to the text above, a non native English speaking friend on mine once observed to me that English is a language that is relatively easy to learn but virtually impossible for a non-native to master due to the subtle differences in meaning that can be conveyed by the choice of a particular synonym. From my personal experience I can say that I have experienced a number of occasions when a fluent, almost mother tongue standard non native English speaking friend has inadvertently caused offence by being so good at the English language that native English speakers have assumed they are native English speakers and have therefore interpreted the words said to them with all the subtlety that would be conveyed by a native English speaker.

I comfort myself with the fact that I am so poor at other languages that no-one will ever think I am anything other than an Englishman. My proudest moment when speaking a foreign language was when the owner of a wine shop in Albi in the Languedoc asked me which bit of northern France I came from as he couldn't place my accent. Contrast that with the time when a supermarket shop assistant in Belgium looked at me scornfully when I asked her if she could speak English. Her reply in perfect RP English, "Of course. I can also speak French, Flemish, German, Spanish, Italian and Russian. Which would you like to speak?"

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 20:17 Thu 17 Sep 2015

There is nothing at all wrong with 'entailing' unless you intend to communicate with baboons.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 20:19 Thu 17 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:
djewesbury wrote:In a most un-Wildean way
Clunky. I like neither. “Un-Wildeianly”?

Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. Yuck.
That's quite an ugly word you've coined there Julian. Oscar would have cut you dead for using it, moved to another city and refused to let your name be spoken in his company again. At least attempt to find something suitably aesthetically pleasing if you find my perfectly satisfying suggestion 'clunky'.
Ugh.

Post by **DRT** » 20:20 Thu 17 Sep 2015

djewesbury wrote:There is nothing at all wrong with 'entailing' unless you intend to communicate with baboons.

That is a very unfair way to describe Americans.

Post by **PhilW** » 21:00 Thu 17 Sep 2015

Un-Wilde-like.
Entailing is fine.
Grin at Derek. Pass the goat please.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:38 Thu 17 Sep 2015

AHB wrote:My proudest moment when speaking a foreign language was when the owner of a wine shop in Albi in the Languedoc asked me which bit of northern France I came from as he couldn't place my accent.

My attempts at French have been met with «êtes-vous allemand?»

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:11 Sun 20 Sep 2015

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=95240#p95240]Here[/url] AHB wrote:Bring the lowest quality wine which you will enjoy.

This is the thread in which it can be said that that ‘which’ should be a ‘that’.

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:49 Wed 23 Sep 2015

Perhaps this is a bit harsh:

The Malvedos blog, in a post entitled [url=http://blog.grahams-port.com/2015/09/23/excellent-touriga-nacional-at-malvedos/]Excellent Touriga Nacional at Malvedos[/url], wrote:The Baumé of these grapes gave a healthy and promising 14.4º.

Post by **PhilW** » 17:40 Wed 23 Sep 2015

jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps this is a bit harsh:
The Malvedos blog, in a post entitled [url=http://blog.grahams-port.com/2015/09/23/excellent-touriga-nacional-at-malvedos/]Excellent Touriga Nacional at Malvedos[/url], wrote:The Baumé of these grapes gave a healthy and promising 14.4º.

Am missing the issue? (capitalisation?)

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:43 Wed 23 Sep 2015

PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:Perhaps this is a bit harsh:
The Malvedos blog, in a post entitled [url=http://blog.grahams-port.com/2015/09/23/excellent-touriga-nacional-at-malvedos/]Excellent Touriga Nacional at Malvedos[/url], wrote:The Baumé of these grapes gave a healthy and promising 14.4º.
Am missing the issue? (capitalisation?)

Oh no! Someone accidentally walked into the room marked 'Do not disturb the pedant'.