Latest post of the previous page:
'Cos if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw away the key...jaywhat wrote:Why do pedants only get a corner?
Latest post of the previous page:
'Cos if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw away the key...jaywhat wrote:Why do pedants only get a corner?
That would be a gross invasion of their rights and a ghastly experience. As a mild pedant, one thing I could not cope with is the continual company of a pedant.Alan H wrote:'Cos if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw away the key...jaywhat wrote:Why do pedants only get a corner?
That should read:Alan H wrote:'Cos if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw away the key...jaywhat wrote:Why do pedants only get a corner?
#1. Cos is either a lettuce or an alternative spelling of the island where Hippocrates lived and taught. The correct abbreviation of "because" is 'cause.'Cause if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw the key away.
I'm away to find a room just for you...Tetenterre wrote:That should read:Alan H wrote:'Cos if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw away the key...jaywhat wrote:Why do pedants only get a corner?#1. Cos is either a lettuce or an alternative spelling of the island where Hippocrates lived and taught. The correct abbreviation of "because" is 'cause.'Cause if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw the key away.
#2. You are throwing the key away, not throwing something called an "away". (The "do not end a sentence with a preposition" does not apply to English. It is overly pedantic.)
#3. You should not end a sentence with an ellipsis. An ellipsis should only be used to indicate an omission.
Spoiler:
And if the omission is at the end of the sentence?Tetenterre wrote: #3. You should not end a sentence with an ellipsis. An ellipsis should only be used to indicate an omission.
Room 101 ?Alan H wrote:I'm away to find a room just for you...
but that is not a complete sentence, only a consequent clause'Cause if we gave them a room, someone would want to lock them in and throw the key away.
Please. The correct typographical element to separate two such clauses is the em dash, not a hyphen. The owners of this forum have thoughtfully provided an easy way of inserting such a character entity [---][/---] by clicking on the appropriate icon in the toolbar above the edit box. I leave it to commenters to decide whether to adopt the UK or US convention of spacing around the em dash.animist wrote:Maybe the pedant room needs to be an assemblage of ever-smaller boxes, one inside the other, with the worst pedants in the innermost and smallest box - a bit like the levels of Hell!
fair enough[---][/---]I was forced to stop using it by my employer[---][/---]a publisher[---][/---]some years ago[---][/---]so sorry, I am sticking with the hyphen!Alan H wrote:Please. The correct typographical element to separate two such clauses is the em dash, not a hyphen. The owners of this forum have thoughtfully provided an easy way of inserting such a character entity [---][/---] by clicking on the appropriate icon in the toolbar above the edit box. I leave it to commenters to decide whether to adopt the UK or US convention of spacing around the em dash.animist wrote:Maybe the pedant room needs to be an assemblage of ever-smaller boxes, one inside the other, with the worst pedants in the innermost and smallest box - a bit like the levels of Hell!
this one does not bother me, I suppose because the word "surreal" would otherwise scarcely ever be used; I think it is strictly a particular movement in art and literature. But this reminds me of why words like this do get used in new ways: it is because they sound good. In the case of "surreal", what people really mean is "unreal", but "surreal" sounds better - so what? BUT one other case that is similar and does annoy me is the use of "disinterested" when what is meant is "uninterested"; the former word used to have a clearly different meaning, which was roughly "impartial", and it is a pity that the two meanings are now confusedimaginaryfriend wrote:While I'm on my ranting vehicle, I wish to express my frustration at the misuse of the word "surreal" which according to my dictionary refers to "having the qualities of surrealism/bizarre" and "the irrational juxtaposition (of images)". I have heard 2 occasions on which this word was misused:
1) When a Paralympian was interviewed on Radio 4 on receiving an OBE for her efforts she described the experience as 'surreal'. Not really, you overcame your disability to achieve incredible success in your particular sport so it's no surprise that you would receive further recognition of this.
2) When Justin Welby was named the new Archbishop of Canterbury, one of his daughters described his appointment as 'surreal'. Assuming that Mr Welby has spent most of his working life within the clergy and was also shortlisted for the post, this is nothing more than expected, perhaps unexpected, or a pleasant surprise, it is far from 'surreal'.
For fear that anyone should think me snobbish or excessively pedantic, I did find one situation in modern popular culture in which the term was correctly used, when Rylan Clark, the current winner of Celebrity Big Brother labelled his experience in the Big Brother house 'surreal', I thought that it was correctly applied, as the 'celebrity' contestants in the Big Brother house were separated from their families, all media and any contact with the outside world. This I believe does concur with the notion of surrealism as it is an "irrational juxtaposition".
The thought of the daughter of christian thinking something so worldly as being promoted as being surreal, is surreal in itself considering all the things her dad believes!imaginaryfriend wrote:2) When Justin Welby was named the new Archbishop of Canterbury, one of his daughters described his appointment as 'surreal'. Assuming that Mr Welby has spent most of his working life within the clergy and was also shortlisted for the post, this is nothing more than expected, perhaps unexpected, or a pleasant surprise, it is far from 'surreal'.
Yeah, I know, but it was the only way I could see to do it within the confines of what the software allows.Dave B wrote:And, Alan H., that em-dash thingy actually invites one to enter something between the html - as do "URL" and "IMG" so I was only following a logical pattern there. And can you find us a tongue poking emoticon please?