BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."
If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?jdaw1 wrote:RAYC wrote:Personally i think there's enough grey area in this one to make their insistence that there is a correct answer rather shaky.We agree.jdaw1 wrote:and one the machine said that I was wrong but that still isn’t obvious to me.
That's true; if we are to infer that Hilary is 'my other brother', then it would also be reasonable to infer that Hilary lives in Madrid.RAYC wrote:BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?jdaw1 wrote:RAYC wrote:Personally i think there's enough grey area in this one to make their insistence that there is a correct answer rather shaky.We agree.jdaw1 wrote:and one the machine said that I was wrong but that still isn’t obvious to me.
What is wrong with "people's..."? Are you being naughty?!AHB wrote:Here DRT asks what is wrong with the site rule number 4.
"People's" is the answer - and I would have answered in the thread but the thread is locked so that there is no discussion of the site rules in that thread!
Who says that Hilary must be alive?RAYC wrote:If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."
Going by the phrase "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", i think Hilary would need to be the "brother who does [live in Madrid]" if the BBC's reasoning is correct.PhilW wrote:Who says that Hilary must be alive?RAYC wrote:If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."
I'm not sure i agree with this - i think the sense is "make sure you attribute work that you quote, because if there's no names, there can be no punishment". I don't interpret sentence 2 as a command ("don't name names"), i interpret it more as the justification / reasoning for the original statement.djewesbury wrote:1. The two sentences contradict one another. What they appear to say is, "Don't cite someone without naming names; don't name names". Huh?
2. Surely, going on what he says in sentence 1, KillerB should attempt to tell us the source of the phrase used in sentence 2. Who said it?!
Am I right? I'm right.
I think there are other options, any of which would explain a potential lack of specification of where Hilary lives, without necessarily including or excluding Madrid:RAYC wrote:Going by the phrase "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", i think Hilary would need to be the "brother who does [live in Madrid]" if the BBC's reasoning is correct.PhilW wrote:Who says that Hilary must be alive?RAYC wrote:If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."
(ok, this one was intended somewhat tongue in cheek) No, I'm sure I disagree with that... I reckon 'no names no pack-drill' was always used to mean 'don't drop anyone in it' - you should not name names. I see what you mean but that's not how the phrase was commonly understood. Whereas it's being used here to expand on a first sentence which says precisely the opposite. I think.RAYC wrote:I'm not sure i agree with this - i think the sense is "make sure you attribute work that you quote, because if there's no names, there can be no punishment". I don't interpret sentence 2 as a command ("don't name names"), i interpret it more as the justification / reasoning for the original statement.djewesbury wrote:1. The two sentences contradict one another. What they appear to say is, "Don't cite someone without naming names; don't name names". Huh?
2. Surely, going on what he says in sentence 1, KillerB should attempt to tell us the source of the phrase used in sentence 2. Who said it?!
Am I right? I'm right.
In addition, I don't think it's reasonable to regard a common phrase of the english language as being within the scope of what is demanded by sentence 1.
KillerB's usage strikes me as a play on that kind of construction - as if to say "if the real culprit is not named, we can't properly challenge / criticise / expose to ridicule"In the first citation for the phrase, OED online wrote:1923 O. Onions Peace in our Time i. ii. 25: Men had a way of omitting the names of those of whom they spoke; no names no pack-drill.
The BBC's reasoning is as follows:PhilW wrote:I think there are other options, any of which would explain a potential lack of specification of where Hilary lives, without necessarily including or excluding Madrid:RAYC wrote:Going by the phrase "my brother who doesn't [live in Madrid]", i think Hilary would need to be the "brother who does [live in Madrid]" if the BBC's reasoning is correct.PhilW wrote:Who says that Hilary must be alive?RAYC wrote:If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?BBC grammar quiz wrote:"I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary."
(i) Hilary is a baby or young child, so it is obvious that he/she lives with his/her parents who may have already been introduced (or the people conversing might be currently at the parents house)
(ii) Hilary has personal issues and does not like people to know where he/she lives, so it is not mentioned
(iii) Hilary is deceased and he is pointing at a mummified corpse or an urn on a shelf
If the BBC are correct, and the implication of this construction is that there are other brothers (or, in any event, at least one other brother), the wording also implies that the distinguishing feature of Benedict (as compared to any other brothers) is that he does not live in Madrid (and therefore that any other brothers do).BBC grammar quiz wrote:The absence of a comma before "who doesn't" implies that there are other brothers. A comma after "my brother" would mean that there was only one brother.
Drats, and I've been so good lately toojdaw1 wrote:
I'm more disappointed in jdaw1 for missing the more obvious one!jdaw1 wrote:
The BBC’s [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-22569463]The Loop[/url], on the subject of the grammar quiz, wrote:Question three (What sex is Hilary based on this statement: "I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary") was not popular.
"What sort of communicator deliberately obfuscates the wording (ie 'sibling called Hilary') and then claims that the comma placement explains all in a communication that is meant to be spoken?" raged Caroline Brown of Rochester via the Your Letters box on this page.
You see, what I don't get is this attempt to moderate pedantry. This is an all or nothing war. If you surrender one bastion or leave one bulwark undefended the whole edifice will fall.jdaw1 wrote:The BBC’s [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-22569463]The Loop[/url], on the subject of the grammar quiz, wrote:Question three (What sex is Hilary based on this statement: "I'd like to introduce you to my sister Clara, who lives in Madrid, to Benedict, my brother who doesn't, and to my only other sibling, Hilary") was not popular.
"What sort of communicator deliberately obfuscates the wording (ie 'sibling called Hilary') and then claims that the comma placement explains all in a communication that is meant to be spoken?" raged Caroline Brown of Rochester via the Your Letters box on this page.
Because it is at Goldsmiths, so convenient for port tastings?djewesbury wrote:Why should I apply for this job
I’ll accept that there is some awkwardness here, but it is yours. You have asked a question your first seven words without a question mark. It is difficult to fix this just in punctuation: some re-arrangement of the clauses would also be necessary.djewesbury wrote:Why should I apply for this job, when the advert contains sentences like this:
"We are looking for someone with a PhD or equivalent qualification and have a strong and active scholarly record in the field of Fine Art, preferably with experience of teaching in art school. You will demonstrate a serious engagement with your own work, and be responsive to the varied and specific needs of those on this strongly student-centred course."
Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!
Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?Glenn E. wrote:Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!
dittojdaw1 wrote:Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?Glenn E. wrote:Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!
Noval Black is obviously young and inexperienced; You'd never catch D66 saying something like that, oh no.Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Could be better than the perfect 1994
Presumably "perfect" being a reference to its 100 point wine spectator rating (in which case the statement "better than....perfect" would arguably be ok)jdaw1 wrote:Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?Glenn E. wrote:Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!
The former.jdaw1 wrote:Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?Glenn E. wrote:Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!
The [url=http://www.rbsactiongroup.co.uk/?p=60]RBS Action Group[/url] wrote:3rd April 2013
Today many of you will have heard the good news that a fellow Action Group (RBoS) have commenced legal action against RBS and some of it’s former directors, including Fred the Shred. ! We ourselves, are pursuing exactly the same claim as RBoS and using the same arguments against RBS and it’s former directors.
Fred will need his vorpal sword when they come for him, he can slash snicker-snack through their wielded apostrophes and go galumphing off.jdaw1 wrote:The [url=http://www.rbsactiongroup.co.uk/?p=60]RBS Action Group[/url] wrote:3rd April 2013
Today many of you will have heard the good news that a fellow Action Group (RBoS) have commenced legal action against RBS and some of it’s former directors, including Fred the Shred. ! We ourselves, are pursuing exactly the same claim as RBoS and using the same arguments against RBS and it’s former directors.
 
It is also about being consistent, which some are not.djewesbury wrote:This isn't about being fair. It's about being right.
But Molly has four dolls. Is it not her dolls' house?RAYC wrote:possessive "dolls' house" or non-possessive adjectival noun "dolls house"
Because it would still be a doll house (or dolls house) even if she had no dolls. Likewise if she loses three dolls, i don't think it should suddenly become her "doll's house" (which it would if you are using "doll" in the possessive as opposed to adjectival or associative sense).Glenn E. wrote:But Molly has four dolls. Is it not her dolls' house?RAYC wrote:possessive "dolls' house" or non-possessive adjectival noun "dolls house"
cf. also "glasses placemat". A placemat for glasses...djewesbury wrote: It is a house for dolls. It is made for dolls generally.
Please could other posters state which possibility they most prefer, which are tolerable, and which intolerable?A friend, not on this excellent BB, wrote:Perhaps this betrays the length of time I lived in America (both in the grammatical and legalistic sense); however I would say it is blindingly obvious that it should be the adjectival ‟doll house”.
The actual ownership of the house does not pertain to any of the dolls individually or collectively, but to the child (or her parents) as dolls cannot legally own property.
