ThePortForum.com

Posted: **19:59 Tue 14 May 2013**

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."

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.
jdaw1 wrote:and one the machine said that I was wrong but that still isn’t obvious to me.
We agree.

If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?

Posted: **20:10 Tue 14 May 2013**

I’d would be comfortable saying something like ‟! my brother who doesn’t, and my other brother who does !”.

Posted: **20:51 Tue 14 May 2013**

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."

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.
jdaw1 wrote:and one the machine said that I was wrong but that still isn’t obvious to me.
We agree.
If the BBC are correct, where does Hilary live?

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.

I would not write like this.

Posted: **21:11 Tue 14 May 2013**

The quiz before I read this did I; and one fewer point than jdaw1 I got. Served me well the Master has.

Posted: **21:36 Tue 14 May 2013**

Another 7 here (one wrong, one didn't know and one disagree); agreement regarding the additional brother being very dubious.

Posted: **21:56 Tue 14 May 2013**

That was a bit of fun. I scored 10/10 but the BBC answers were wrong for 3 of the questions.

More seriously, I did learn the difference between a misplaced modifier and a dangling participle. A fact that will live with me for the rest of my life and probably never be used.

Posted: **22:03 Tue 14 May 2013**

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!

Posted: **22:26 Tue 14 May 2013**

I'm going for a comma after "names".

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!

What is wrong with "people's..."? Are you being naughty?!

[prepares to be showered with derision....]

Posted: **22:51 Tue 14 May 2013**

I didn't realise that the thread was locked "locked" being a thing that an Admin cannot see when viewing a phpBB forum.

But that is not the answer I was looking for.

Look at the two sentences.

Posted: **00:35 Wed 15 May 2013**

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.

Posted: **06:12 Wed 15 May 2013**

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?

Who says that Hilary must be alive?

Posted: **06:24 Wed 15 May 2013**

PhilW wrote:
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?
Who says that Hilary must be alive?

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.

Posted: **06:36 Wed 15 May 2013**

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'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.

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.

Posted: **07:41 Wed 15 May 2013**

RAYC wrote:
PhilW wrote:
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?
Who says that Hilary must be alive?
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.

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:
(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

(ok, this one was intended somewhat tongue in cheek)

Posted: **08:47 Wed 15 May 2013**

RAYC wrote:
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'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.

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.

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.

BUT the only person who can tell us what was on his mind is DRT. Are you out there Derek...?

Posted: **09:24 Wed 15 May 2013**

OED online seems to support that it can be used paranthetically:

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.

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"

Wherever we get to on this, we should make sure that AHB's initial comment does not escape scrutiny!

Posted: **09:48 Wed 15 May 2013**

PhilW wrote:
RAYC wrote:
PhilW wrote:
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?
Who says that Hilary must be alive?
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.
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:
(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 (ok, this one was intended somewhat tongue in cheek)

The BBC's reasoning is as follows:

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.

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).

Posted: **13:00 Wed 15 May 2013**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=57141#p57141]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Kudo’s to them

Posted: **13:02 Wed 15 May 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=57141#p57141]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Kudo’s to them

Drats, and I've been so good lately too

Posted: **13:10 Wed 15 May 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=57141#p57141]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Kudo’s to them

I'm more disappointed in jdaw1 for missing the more obvious one!

Posted: **17:21 Fri 17 May 2013**

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.

Posted: **17:28 Fri 17 May 2013**

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.

Posted: **23:29 Fri 17 May 2013**

Caroline has obvious Lib-Dem tenancies. Extreme pedantry is a life-enriching experience.

Posted: **20:57 Mon 20 May 2013**

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."

Posted: **21:34 Mon 20 May 2013**

djewesbury wrote:Why should I apply for this job

Because it is at Goldsmiths, so convenient for port tastings?

Posted: **21:37 Mon 20 May 2013**

The power of Google.. Yes, that simple fact overrides other considerations..

Posted: **21:48 Mon 20 May 2013**

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."

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.

Posted: **21:55 Mon 20 May 2013**

It's all too much..

Posted: **00:25 Tue 28 May 2013**

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!

Posted: **09:25 Tue 28 May 2013**

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!

Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?

Posted: **09:57 Tue 28 May 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
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!
Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?

ditto

Posted: **13:58 Tue 28 May 2013**

Noval Black on Facebook wrote:"Could be better than the perfect 1994

Noval Black is obviously young and inexperienced; You'd never catch D66 saying something like that, oh no.

Posted: **14:04 Tue 28 May 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
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!
Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?

Presumably "perfect" being a reference to its 100 point wine spectator rating (in which case the statement "better than....perfect" would arguably be ok)

Posted: **23:52 Tue 28 May 2013**

jdaw1 wrote:
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!
Is the grouch about ‟better than ! perfect”, or something too subtle for me to have noticed?

The former.

Perfect is perfect. "Better than perfect" makes no sense.

And to be fair, Noval Black's Facebook page was quoting James Suckling. The error is his, not theirs. My quote could have been clearer.

Posted: **08:36 Sun 23 Jun 2013**

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.

Posted: **09:55 Sun 23 Jun 2013**

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.

Fred will need his vorpal sword when they come for him, he can slash snicker-snack through their wielded apostrophes and go galumphing off.

Posted: **22:00 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

Am I being unfair?

Â

For my taste, it is borderline.

Posted: **22:19 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

This isn't about being fair. It's about being right.

Posted: **22:25 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

I agree - but i'm not sure what's better (possessive "dolls' house" or non-possessive adjectival noun "dolls house"). If i were writing, i'd probably fudge it and go for "doll house"!

"She has put every doll so that they look out of the four windows" is also one that i might have chosen to phrase differently.

Posted: **22:31 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

djewesbury wrote:This isn't about being fair. It's about being right.

It is also about being consistent, which some are not.

Posted: **22:45 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

RAYC wrote:possessive "dolls' house" or non-possessive adjectival noun "dolls house"

But Molly has four dolls. Is it not her dolls' house?

Posted: **22:53 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

Molly stores four dolls in the house. Surely the only correct answer in the context of this page is "dolls' house"?

The structure could, without this context, be described as "a doll's house". But the context makes the difference.

Posted: **23:00 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

Glenn E. wrote:
RAYC wrote:possessive "dolls' house" or non-possessive adjectival noun "dolls house"
But Molly has four dolls. Is it not her 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).

I regard this in the same way as i do "Achilles Tendon" - it is not actually Achilles' tendon.

Posted: **23:11 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

Sorry, I believe it could only be a dolls' house. It is this regardless of the particular doll who happens to be dwelling there. It is a house for dolls. It is made for dolls generally.

Posted: **23:24 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

hen house, chicken coop, cow shed, bird bath, rabbit warren, badger sett.

All commonly used without apostrophe.

I think "doll house" or "dolls house" falls in the same category.

Posted: **23:33 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

djewesbury wrote: It is a house for dolls. It is made for dolls generally.

cf. also "glasses placemat". A placemat for glasses...

Posted: **23:48 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

Doll house? Fine, if you're American. Hen house, chicken coop etc all fine: how on earth could you apostrophise these anyway? Dolls' house, however, is not an adjectival noun.

Posted: **23:56 Wed 26 Jun 2013**

chickens' coop? hens' house? I don't see the distinction between those and "dolls' house".

Posted: **00:12 Thu 27 Jun 2013**

Albeit OED seems to prefer "doll's house"....!

Akin to "bird's nest" perhaps (cannot recall seeing "birds' nest")

Posted: **10:03 Thu 27 Jun 2013**

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.

Please could other posters state which possibility they most prefer, which are tolerable, and which intolerable?

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

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes