ThePortForum.com

Posted: **17:09 Tue 28 Jan 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:The pedants' revolt: Grammar guerrillas make their mark in battle against Cambridge council's war on street sign apostrophes.

Old hat! link

Posted: **16:47 Wed 29 Jan 2014**

The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25940865]Lancashire Fusiliers Gallipoli Victoria Cross sought by museum[/url], wrote:"Our mission is to find it so it can take its place alongside the other VC's in the exhibition."

Lord Ashcroft, who has loaned three VCs to the museum for the exhibition, said the "'Six before Breakfast' comprise one of the most celebrated batches of gallantry medals from any action of the entire Great War".

Posted: **15:20 Thu 30 Jan 2014**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=71801#p71801]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:we will invite one industry guest, who's costs will be covered by the attendees.

Posted: **15:29 Thu 30 Jan 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=71801#p71801]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:we will invite one industry guest, who's costs will be covered by the attendees.

{Sackcloth and ashes}

Posted: **16:29 Thu 30 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=71801#p71801]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:we will invite one industry guest, who's costs will be covered by the attendees.
{Sackcloth and ashes}

Aren't you English? I think this year you'll have to make do with just sackcloth.

Posted: **16:30 Thu 30 Jan 2014**

Glenn E. wrote:
PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=71801#p71801]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:we will invite one industry guest, who's costs will be covered by the attendees.
{Sackcloth and ashes}
Aren't you English? I think this year you'll have to make do with just sackcloth.

Posted: **11:46 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

There will be three numbers, and I am instructing somebody to take the average of the better two of them. Or should that be the best two of them?

So if the numbers are 10, 11 and 12, the result should be Average(11, 12) = 11½.

Better two of three, or best two of three?

Posted: **13:23 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:There will be three numbers, and I am instructing somebody to take the average of the better two of them. Or should that be the best two of them?

So if the numbers are 10, 11 and 12, the result should be Average(11, 12) = 11½.

Better two of three, or best two of three?

Why is higher better? Same problem, different word. Just wondering.

Posted: **14:30 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

djewesbury wrote:Why is higher better?

I should have said that the context makes very obvious that higher = better.

But the same question could be asked of ‟higher two of three” versus ‟highest two of three”.

Posted: **14:41 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:There will be three numbers, and I am instructing somebody to take the average of the better two of them. Or should that be the best two of them?

So if the numbers are 10, 11 and 12, the result should be Average(11, 12) = 11½.

Better two of three, or best two of three?

Best two of three. Two of them may be better than the other, but you have select the best two (i.e. better is always a comparative between at least two elements or groups, while best is a single element or group based on a criteria).

Posted: **14:44 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:But the same question could be asked of ‟higher two of three” versus ‟highest two of three”.

hence

djewesbury wrote:Same problem, different word.

Posted: **16:44 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:There will be three numbers, and I am instructing somebody to take the average of the better two of them. Or should that be the best two of them?

So if the numbers are 10, 11 and 12, the result should be Average(11, 12) = 11½.

Better two of three, or best two of three?
Best two of three. Two of them may be better than the other, but you have select the best two (i.e. better is always a comparative between at least two elements or groups, while best is a single element or group based on a criteria).

My choice as well. Possibly even "best two of the three."

Posted: **20:36 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

Glenn E. wrote:
PhilW wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:There will be three numbers, and I am instructing somebody to take the average of the better two of them. Or should that be the best two of them?

So if the numbers are 10, 11 and 12, the result should be Average(11, 12) = 11½.

Better two of three, or best two of three?
Best two of three. Two of them may be better than the other, but you have select the best two (i.e. better is always a comparative between at least two elements or groups, while best is a single element or group based on a criteria).
My choice as well. Possibly even "best two of the three."

I also agree with this. I think the choice is made clearer if you increase the number of the pool from 3 and see what you would do in those circumstances.

Posted: **20:55 Thu 13 Feb 2014**

Which agrees with my (formerly tentative) preference. Thank you.

Posted: **17:31 Sun 16 Feb 2014**

How much would a completely fresh lobster salad be?

Posted: **18:20 Sun 16 Feb 2014**

djewesbury wrote:How much would a completely fresh lobster salad be?

You could also ask them how many salads you get with each lobster portion, too.

Posted: **18:35 Sun 16 Feb 2014**

You neglected to mention the fig problem. Was that deliberate?

Posted: **17:56 Mon 17 Feb 2014**

I prefer the thought of the 80z burger. I'm hoping the corrected menu should read 80 oz burger.

Posted: **21:47 Mon 17 Feb 2014**

DRT wrote:You neglected to mention the fig problem. Was that deliberate?

The fig problem was a given. It was the fig problem that allowed all the other peculiarities to come into our purview.

Posted: **01:32 Tue 18 Feb 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:You neglected to mention the fig problem. Was that deliberate?
The fig problem was a given. It was the fig problem that allowed all the other peculiarities to come into our purview.

I get that, but Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion, not mass murder, smuggling and extortion. It is important to include the lesser crimes in the charge just in case

Posted: **21:09 Tue 11 Mar 2014**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=73058#p73058]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:acting as a Amicus Curia

Of course that should have been, even if typed using a phone, “an Amicus Curia”.

Hopefully, in the spirit of banks’ self-reporting of benchmark crimes, my self-reporting will result in a milder punishment.

Posted: **00:20 Wed 12 Mar 2014**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=73058#p73058]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:acting as a Amicus Curia
Of course that should have been, even if typed using a phone, “an Amicus Curia”.

Hopefully, in the spirit of banks’ self-reporting of benchmark crimes, my self-reporting will result in a milder punishment.

I thought Amicus Curiae?

Posted: **08:25 Wed 12 Mar 2014**

djewesbury wrote:I thought Amicus Curiae?

Wikipedia agrees that further penance is required. For reasons of stupidity and English word order, I was attempting to singularise the adjective. Doh. Sackcloth and ashes.

Posted: **14:49 Mon 17 Mar 2014**

Messrs Christie and Manson, in their splendid catalogue of the “Interesting and Valuable Collection of Antiquities … The Property of The Commandant Barbetti” to be auctioned on 1 June 1857, wrote:
Scarabs, Mounted in Gold and Silver.
147 …

Scarabs, In Cornelian, Mounted.
162 …

Scarabæi, In Green Jasper, (not Mounted).
408 …

Scarabs, In Soft Stone and Porcelain.
442 …

Scarabæi, In Green Jasper, Mounted in Silver.
460 …

Scarabæi, Mounted In Gold.
462 …

Note to self: pictures 17714 to 17719.

Posted: **10:54 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

This is a curious one. In Dorothy L. Sayers's The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club (the one, you will remember, with a rather nice description of the Cockburn 1886), the plural of a family name is always printed with an apostrophe, viz:

Now this is done with such consistency that it can't be a typo every time. Sayers was also quite the grammarian so not given to casual solecisms. Is this some sort of strange slang possessive, as in "I've just been to the family of The Rushworth"? Rather like clan chieftains might be referred to as, for instance, The O'Rahilly, or The Turnbull?
Any thoughts?

Posted: **11:02 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

Please reproduce the whole sentence to provide context.

Posted: **11:20 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

'Waffles! What have you been doing, old boy?'
'Interviewing the Rushworth's,' said Waffles, edging his way into a chair by Hardy.

Posted: **11:21 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

The context gives no clue. It's the same elsewhere. Any time a plural family name would ordinarily be used to indicate the entire family, an annoying apostrophe lopes inter.

Posted: **12:51 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

Perhaps it is consistently incompetent type-setting / proof-reading?

Posted: **13:12 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

Nowadays we might write of the 1890s, whereas then they would have written of the 1890’s. Is this similar?

Posted: **14:04 Sun 06 Apr 2014**

DRT wrote:Perhaps it is consistently incompetent type-setting / proof-reading?

jdaw1 wrote:Nowadays we might write of the 1890s, whereas then they would have written of the 1890’s. Is this similar?

Of both suggestions, I prefer the first. This is a rather cheap, rather old, paperback imprint. The type isn't even set square on the page. What puzzles me is why they would specially commission a bad set of the type. Surely they'd have just bought in the galleys and printed from them. Or maybe that's not how it worked.

Posted: **20:59 Fri 11 Apr 2014**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=74063#p74063]Here[/url] SushiNorth wrote:Any bottle, provide there is an 8 in it's vintage.

Posted: **21:32 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

Glenn E. wrote:My totally inadequate digital camera is charging just in case the blood moon is visible in 2 hours. Tonight would be the night for me to have Derek's telescope if the internets is to be believed.

Posted: **22:18 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

DRT wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:My totally inadequate digital camera is charging just in case the blood moon is visible in 2 hours. Tonight would be the night for me to have Derek's telescope if the internets is to be believed.

Not a crime. "The internets" is fairly common usage, at least in the US, to imply that blind faith in anything you read on the internet is unwise.

Note that in this case, the internets was not to be believed. Despite the good forecast, it rained and so I was unable to view the blood moon.

Posted: **22:20 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

Guilty as charged.

Posted: **22:20 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

Glenn E. wrote:
DRT wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:My totally inadequate digital camera is charging just in case the blood moon is visible in 2 hours. Tonight would be the night for me to have Derek's telescope if the internets is to be believed.
Not a crime. "The internets" is fairly common usage, at least in the US, to imply that blind faith in anything you read on the internet is unwise.

Agreed. Humorous and intentional. Not a crime. Which one of us etc etc Let he who is without etc etc.

Posted: **22:25 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

DRT wrote:Guilty as charged.

Read on the internets, therefore obviously not true.

Posted: **22:40 Tue 15 Apr 2014**

Is it too late to claim that Bush-isms should be considered default crimes?

Posted: **10:48 Mon 05 May 2014**

PhilW, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8323#p75206]here[/url], wrote: […] last seen in it's prime at the Bell, in a photo amongst all it's friends; I'm hoping it found a well-cared for resting home with a new pub-owner.

Posted: **12:38 Mon 05 May 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
PhilW, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8323#p75206]here[/url], wrote: […] last seen in it's prime at the Bell, in a photo amongst all it's friends; I'm hoping it found a well-cared for resting home with a new pub-owner.

Damn, sackcloth everywhere.

Posted: **17:05 Mon 05 May 2014**

Our local paper this week mentions an event where a visiting chef will be creating a dish "going back to his routes"; I suspect it is too much to hope that this is some reference to a previous career as a lorry driver...

Posted: **23:15 Sun 11 May 2014**

DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.

Posted: **23:23 Sun 11 May 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.

More of a dialect thing than a crime - certainly not worth the lead pellets to the knees.

Posted: **23:28 Sun 11 May 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.

I'm not so sure a crime has been committed here...the knock on the door is singular, the new knees plural, however the new knees come as a composite bundle with the knock on the door, with the bundle able to be treated as a singular.

Posted: **23:30 Sun 11 May 2014**

flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.
I'm not so sure a crime has been committed here...the knock on the door is singular, the new knees plural, however the new knees come as a composite bundle with the knock on the door, with the bundle able to be treated as a singular.

Whether or not DRT committed a crime, you certainly have. Sophistry of this kind is clearly injurious to the euphony of the tongue.

Posted: **23:36 Sun 11 May 2014**

djewesbury wrote:
flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.
I'm not so sure a crime has been committed here...the knock on the door is singular, the new knees plural, however the new knees come as a composite bundle with the knock on the door, with the bundle able to be treated as a singular.
Whether or not DRT committed a crime, you certainly have. Sophistry of this kind is clearly injurious to the euphony of the tongue.

Please direct further correspondence to my solicitor (Derek).

Posted: **23:39 Sun 11 May 2014**

flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.
I'm not so sure a crime has been committed here...the knock on the door is singular, the new knees plural, however the new knees come as a composite bundle with the knock on the door, with the bundle able to be treated as a singular.
Whether or not DRT committed a crime, you certainly have. Sophistry of this kind is clearly injurious to the euphony of the tongue.
Please direct further correspondence to my solicitor (Derek).

Case dismissed.

Posted: **23:44 Sun 11 May 2014**

DRT wrote:
flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
flash_uk wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
DRT wrote:… the knock on the door and some new knees is never far away.
I'm not so sure a crime has been committed here...the knock on the door is singular, the new knees plural, however the new knees come as a composite bundle with the knock on the door, with the bundle able to be treated as a singular.
Whether or not DRT committed a crime, you certainly have. Sophistry of this kind is clearly injurious to the euphony of the tongue.
Please direct further correspondence to my solicitor (Derek).
Case dismissed.

It doesn't work like that. You're both guilty. I refer this to the higher authority. Or at least his great big avatar.

Posted: **00:19 Mon 12 May 2014**

djewesbury wrote:I refer this to the higher authority. Or at least his great big avatar.

Most disturbing. Is it too late to vote Raving Loony to avoid being associated with the Creepy Big Head Party?

Posted: **13:45 Mon 12 May 2014**

djewesbury, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=75320#p75320]here[/url], wrote:Too me this is a powerful expression of the beauty of democracy.

ThePortForum.com

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes