ThePortForum.com

Posted: **01:05 Sun 13 Dec 2015**

Doggett wrote:Damn...I had hoped not to appear in this thread!

Join the queue

Posted: **17:52 Thu 17 Dec 2015**

Here jdaw started a thread with a flagrant typo in the subject header. Oh, the indignity.

Posted: **21:12 Thu 17 Dec 2015**

PopulusTremula wrote:Here jdaw started a thread with a flagrant typo in the subject header. Oh, the indignity.

Oh, the indignity! Sackcloth and ashes.

Posted: **00:31 Thu 24 Dec 2015**

Will the existence of the four-dot elipsis at the end of the opening title scroll of the new Star Wars film cause a disturbance in The Force?

Posted: **17:02 Thu 31 Dec 2015**

Act Quietly!

Posted: **17:37 Thu 31 Dec 2015**

jdaw1 wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:No doubt correction will be administered.
This is not that type of website. (And pore.)

Thank you. I would correct the original but that would ruin the explanation.

Posted: **10:20 Thu 14 Jan 2016**

[url=http://http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10554#p97609]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:Yes please. I will revert with what little I have.

Revert does not mean reply, respond or follow-up; it means to return to previous condition or state.
Some people seem to have recently started using it incorrectly to mean reply, respond or follow-up; this seems to have been initially by people for whom English is not their first language and some in the the American business community. Sadly, it seems to have been picked up and used by some in UK business communications as well - but no, we should not encourage it.

Posted: **10:36 Thu 14 Jan 2016**

{Sackcloth-and-ashes}

May I move these into the AC thread?

Posted: **21:05 Thu 14 Jan 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:{Sackcloth-and-ashes}

May I move these into the AC thread?

Yes; I'd intended to post there in the first place.

Posted: **17:07 Sun 07 Feb 2016**

Dear oh dear: Tesco blunder.

Posted: **00:40 Tue 16 Feb 2016**

In an advertising email, Puget Sound PMI wrote:What differenciates You from the Competition?

I can spell.

Posted: **09:05 Tue 16 Feb 2016**

Glenn E. wrote:
In an advertising email, Puget Sound PMI wrote:What differenciates You from the Competition?
I can spell.

Lol. You also appear to be able to use capital letters correctly; you're probably over-qualified.

Posted: **13:54 Wed 09 Mar 2016**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=98647#p98647]Here[/url] LGTrotter wrote:you shouldn't stand a wine on it's head.

Posted: **09:23 Thu 10 Mar 2016**

Salesian college, Farnborough

Posted: **09:15 Fri 11 Mar 2016**

PhilW wrote:Salesian college, Farnborough

By Jove, that is a humdinger!

Posted: **13:41 Fri 18 Mar 2016**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=98773#p98773]Here[/url] AHB wrote:I already have buyer's who'd like to buy the bottles!

Posted: **22:23 Fri 18 Mar 2016**

AHB seems to be on a roll...

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7654&start=2350]Here[/url] AHB wrote:Oh dear, Scotland need 21 of the last over to beat Afghanistan on the opening day of the world T20 cup

Posted: **00:44 Sat 19 Mar 2016**

DRT wrote:AHB seems to be on a roll...

If AHB were to criticise DRT for using three dots (“...”) rather than an ellipsis character (“…”), I would support that. But, at least today, I’m not going to be that fussy. Well, not yet today.

Posted: **22:26 Tue 29 Mar 2016**

Choose.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.
(Re TH50.)

Posted: **22:36 Tue 29 Mar 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:Choose.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.
(Re TH50.)

I have no idea of the correct rule (or what TH50 is), but I suspect either is okay. Having said that, my preference is for 'were'.

Posted: **23:13 Tue 29 Mar 2016**

Doggett wrote:I have no idea of the correct rule (or what TH50 is)

TH = Tuke Holdsworth, and the answer is "was". "a dozen" might be thought of as plural, but "another dozen" is a singular unit.

Posted: **06:52 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

DRT wrote:
Doggett wrote:I have no idea of the correct rule (or what TH50 is)
TH = Tuke Holdsworth, and the answer is "was". "a dozen" might be thought of as plural, but "another dozen" is a singular unit.

Back to skool for me...on both counts...the shame!

Posted: **07:51 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

DRT wrote: "a dozen" might be thought of as plural, but "another dozen" is a singular unit.

Hmm. I agree that it comes down to whether the dozen is treated as a singular unit or a plural group of items, but that depends on context. I don't know whether there is any specific rule in this regard, but it seems to me that where the number of dozen is stated it can be singular, but where the item is stated (explicitly or implicitly) it would always be plural even if only one dozen; argument by example with implicit/explicit item in brackets:

• One dozen (of items) was placed in the fridge.
• Another dozen (of items) was placed on the side.
• Two dozen (of items) were placed in the pantry.
vs
• A dozen (items) were cooked for breakfast.
• Another dozen (items) were cooked for lunch.
• Two dozen (items) were cooked for dinner.

"Was" would definitely sound wrong to me in the first two lines of the second set.

In JDAW's particular case, either option could work since it is ambiguously singular or plural; I would suggest that is depends upon the preceding line to provide sufficient context:
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen (bottles) were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen (of D66) was sold at £62.

Posted: **15:38 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

I don't think it does come down to whether dozen is treated as a singular or plural unit. I think it is always "were", because the items in question are bottles, not dozen, or dozens.
One bottle was sold.
One dozen bottles were sold.
One dozen were sold.

Posted: **15:50 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

flash_uk wrote:I think it is always "were"

English tuition put on hold for now

Posted: **16:47 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

I’m genuinely conflicted.

It is not that each of the dozen bottles was sold at £62 (so it wasn’t £744 for the lot), it was the dozen that was sold at £62. That points to “another dozen was sold at £62.”

But let’s vary it. Obviously, if it were 11 bottles, then “another eleven bottles were sold at £57.” Perhaps the dozen should be consistent with that? I think this agrees with Flash.

Indeed, I think my being conflicted agrees with Phil.

Posted: **21:11 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

Style guides and books of usage are generally clear on this point. A dozen (eggs, or bottles) is a singular unit; the collective noun takes the verb, not the individual items. If a dozen people are meeting you for a port tasting, they are plural; I think this is to with the non-identical nature of the items being considered (yes, sure, please do go ahead and argue that point).

Posted: **21:32 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

flash_uk wrote:I don't think it does come down to whether dozen is treated as a singular or plural unit.

You are correct, but not for the reason you think.

You are correct because the unit in question is not "dozen" but "another" which is singular.

Posted: **21:40 Wed 30 Mar 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:But let’s vary it. Obviously, if it were 11 bottles, then “another eleven bottles were sold at £57.”

"Another" implies "set of" in the sentence - "another (set of) eleven bottles was sold at £57."

Leaving "another" out yields "eleven bottles were sold at £57," which to me implies that they could have been sold individually, but were instead sold together (but not as a deliberate unit).

Posted: **11:13 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

I think it comes down to the implied meaning that comes from the form of the verb.

"1 dozen bottles was sold" implies a single lot of 12 bottles. "1 dozen bottles were sold" implies a number of lots of bottles which together added to 12 bottles.

Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.

Posted: **11:21 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.

AHB wrote:Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.

Would the same one-lot reasoning apply if “dozen” were replaced with “eleven”, or with “11”?

Posted: **11:34 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:• On 7 November 1974 another dozen were sold at £62.
• On 7 November 1974 another dozen was sold at £62.

AHB wrote:Given that we have been told this was a single lot of 12 bottles I vote for "1 dozen bottles was sold" - it is the dozen that was sold, not the 12 individual bottles. The dozen was indivisible and therefore is a singular item.
Would the same one-lot reasoning apply if “dozen” were replaced with “eleven”, or with “11”?

If you spoke of "11 bottles" then the answer is no, that would be "Another 11 bottles were sold".

If you spoke of it as a lot of 11 bottles then you would be referring to a singular unit, hence "Another lot of 11 bottles was sold"

Posted: **16:11 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

AHB wrote:"Another 11 bottles were sold".

I still think you're focusing on the wrong word. Replacing "dozen" with "11 bottles" doesn't matter. (Or rather, doing so makes the use of "another" improper.)

"Another"... "an other"... means "one more".

"One more [dozen | 11 bottles] were sold" makes no sense. It is grammatically incorrect for "another" to be plural. If you want to use 11 bottles, then you change the sentence to "11 more bottles were sold."

Ergo, another dozen was sold at £62.

Posted: **21:21 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

I still don't think it matters if the dozen were the same bottles or different bottles. They were bottles, plural, and so the bottles "were" sold, or the dozen bottles "were" sold, or the dozen "were" sold. If it was one lot of a dozen bottles, then I'd say it was one lot of a dozen bottles "were" sold. If I didn't specify what was in the lot, then it would be just one lot was sold, as in "there were two lots of a dozen F63 for sale, one lot was sold for £10, the other lot was sold for £11."

Can I test a similar phrase. What about a pair of shoes? I think it is a pair of shoes were sold.

Posted: **23:49 Fri 01 Apr 2016**

flash_uk wrote:Can I test a similar phrase. What about a pair of shoes? I think it is a pair of shoes were sold.

What is the subject of the sentence? A pair, not shoes.

A pair of shoes was sold.

"Of shoes" is a descriptive clause; the verb must agree with the subject.

Back to the original question, "another" requires a singular object.

Another object was sold.
Another objects were sold.

Object is the subject, and it must agree with the verb. However, for the use of "another" in the sentence to be correct the subject must be singular.

"Another dozen were sold" requires that "another" and "dozen" agree, and also that "dozen" and "were" agree. But for that to be true, "dozen" must be both singular and plural in its usage in the sentence which cannot be true. So take your pick; either "another" does not agree with "dozen" or "dozen" does not agree with "were," and in either case the sentence is grammatically incorrect.

Ergo, another dozen was sold at £62.

Posted: **00:29 Sat 02 Apr 2016**

I need a drink

Posted: **02:01 Sat 02 Apr 2016**

Glenn E. wrote: What is the subject of the sentence? A pair, not shoes.

A pair of shoes was sold.

"Of shoes" is a descriptive clause; the verb must agree with the subject

Am with you that the verb must agree with the subject, which in this case is a pair, but a pair can be considered a singular noun or a plural noun depending on what it is a pair of. A pair of knickers is singular. Earrings, shoes, socks can be singular or plural. So I believe both a pair of shoes was sold and a pair of shoes were sold are both correct. As such, given that a dozen refers to a number of discrete items, I would posit that both a dozen bottles were sold and a dozen bottles was sold could both be correct.

Posted: **02:41 Sat 02 Apr 2016**

I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.

Posted: **21:38 Sun 03 Apr 2016**

Glenn E. wrote:I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.

This website has a few examples.

Posted: **15:40 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

flash_uk wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:I'd have to see examples, because as far as I know a pair is always singular.
This website has a few examples.

Interesting. I agree with the concept of notional agreement, but even the examples given appear wrong to me. A pair is a singular object. If you have two unrelated objects, you refer to them as "two objects" not "a pair of objects."

Their "shoes" example demonstrates it perfectly for me. Their attempted notional use of "a pair of shoes" looks and sounds wrong... because despite the concept being valid, it doesn't apply (to me) to a pair of shoes.

Posted: **20:48 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks. Socks could also be a matching pair of socks or an odd pair of socks.

Posted: **21:42 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

flash_uk wrote:I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks.

I remember my wife calling for help saying; "I'm stuck, I've got two legs in one knicker".

Posted: **22:02 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

LGTrotter wrote:
flash_uk wrote:I thought the distinction about a pair was more about discrete items rather than a whole item. It is not possible to separate one knicker from a pair of knickers. It is possible to separate one sock from a pair of socks.
I remember my wife calling for help saying; "I'm stuck, I've got two legs in one knicker".

[like]

Please can we end this debate here? Please?

Posted: **22:31 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

It was not the direction in which the conversation had been originally pointed.

Posted: **23:44 Mon 04 Apr 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:It was not the direction in which the conversation had been originally pointed.

To wit, despite the educational link, I still claim that the use of "another" requires a singular object. Regardless of whether or not dozen, or pair, or whatever, can be plural it must be singular in this usage.

Posted: **16:34 Wed 13 Apr 2016**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=99246#p99246]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:I have a Cockburn and a Fonseca G...one of which I need for my parents golden wedding anniversary and the other for the tasting. Either way round is ok.

Two errors!

Posted: **22:58 Wed 13 Apr 2016**

This book review considers a book which takes aim at grammar pedantry, suggesting the "rules" cited are often without substance or authority. Thoughts anyone?

Posted: **06:41 Thu 14 Apr 2016**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=99246#p99246]Here[/url] Doggett wrote:I have a Cockburn and a Fonseca G...one of which I need for my parents golden wedding anniversary and the other for the tasting. Either way round is ok.
Two errors!

Shame on me for rushing and missing their ownership of their anniversary... And further shame for depriving 'round' of an additional 'a'. I shall be in the stocks in Sanderstead village at lunchtime with a basket of rotten fruit, for those that wish to administer the appropriate punishment.

Posted: **08:41 Thu 14 Apr 2016**

The most important error was the idea that bottles of Port could be for any purpose other than sharing with us.

Posted: **22:51 Wed 04 May 2016**

I fail: www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36205762.

ThePortForum.com

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Thursday 19th May 2016, 66@50

Re: Thursday 19th May 2016, 66@50

Re: Thursday 19th May 2016, 66@50

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