DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ħ on March 23, 2012, 06:47:08 PM
-
As of about a month ago, I finally learned. But I never knew there was a difference before then.
-
eg = example
ie - that is
Didn't know people didn't know that.
-
Indeed. E.g. denotes an example of the subject of the preceding sub-sentence, whereas i.e. is a shitty web browser.
-
I knew that but don't know what the abbreviations are for
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
-
Yup. I learned the difference a year ago or so.
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Well, here's another thing most people don't know: Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who created him. The monster actually never has a name.
rumborak
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Well, here's another thing most people don't know: Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who created him. The monster actually never has a name.
rumborak
Monsters name was actually Tiffany. That's why it got so pissed off.
-
Learned this at uni by losing a few marks.
-
i dun learned me this when i was at a nascar game! i took a guess at the thingy and got it right in some sort of free beer contest! by God was that beer gud!
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
How many people here know the difference between every day and everyday?
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
(https://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i166/AsIAmDesign/avatar_3550_1325139508.png)
-
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
(https://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i166/AsIAmDesign/avatar_3550_1325139508.png)
(https://images.wikia.com/mspaintadventures/images/c/ce/03679.gif)
*ollies outie*
-
As for the OP, I did know the difference between them, but I don't know what either abbreviation actually stand for.
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
How many people here know the difference between every day and everyday?
John listens to the radio every day.
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
-
Yup. Everyday is an adjective that describes something as a common occurrence. Every day is a combination of an adjective and noun that means "each day".
-
Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who created him. The monster actually never has a name.
rumborak
This actually always bugs me too when people think it is the name of the monster.
-
As for the OP, I did know the difference between them, but I don't know what either abbreviation actually stand for.
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
How many people here know the difference between every day and everyday?
John listens to the radio every day.
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
Here, we want to say John's listening to the radio. Otherwise, we're calling John an occurrence, which is weird.
-
As for the OP, I did know the difference between them, but I don't know what either abbreviation actually stand for.
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Only because we're in this thread...
*every day
How many people here know the difference between every day and everyday?
John listens to the radio every day.
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
Here, we want to say John's listening to the radio. Otherwise, we're calling John an occurrence, which is weird.
No, we're not calling John an occurrence, we're calling John being in the state of listening to the radio an occurrence.
-
Hey, if you think of people as occurrences, that's cool, man.
-
Yeah. I actually will tend to side with theseoafs. "Listening to the radio" is a extra bit of information describing John, and the sentence should still make sense without it. If you take it out it becomes, "John is an everyday occurrence."
-
Except it's not actually an extra bit of information. It's the point of the sentence.
"John listened to the radio today? Well, duh! Him listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence!"
Would you consider this valid? If so, sub 'him' with 'John' and the sentence shouldn't be any less valid. If not, then, well, I respectfully disagree but could very well be wrong.
-
You have two options --
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
John's listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
The first has John as the subject, and the second has listening as the subject. In the first sentence, "listening to the radio" modifies the subject John, and in the second, "John's" modifies the subject "listening to the radio". As Implode said, these modifiers shouldn't really be integral to the sentences, and the sentence should make a lick of sense without them. So let's take them out:
John is an everyday occurrence.
Listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
Obviously, the second is preferable.
Except it's not actually an extra bit of information. It's the point of the sentence.
If it's the point of the sentence, it should be the subject.
-
I actually say things like that when I speak all the time, but most correctly I think it should be "His listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence."
Of course this isn't really a big deal. The point of grammar is to facilitate clear communication, and we know what you mean either way.
-
> proven wrong at grammar.
> wants to write professionally.
> should probably rethink life.
In my defense, I did use 'everyday' correctly, which was the point.
-
theseoafs is right for once.
Wow, that's another predicament. If the subject of your sentence is a proper noun but not capitalized, then do you you captialize it at the beginning of the sentence? Example: theseoafs.
-
I think case sensitive proper names is new enough to where there isn't really an official "rule" yet.
-
The only reason you would ever have this problem is if you're dealing with some artsy-fartsy type who insists on having their title written in lowercase (we're looking at you, Mr. cummings), so it's sort of a non-issue. But I suppose you could talk to Mr. cummings directly if you absolutely needed to know.
I do not particularly care about the capitalization of my name.
EDIT: Before somebody gets their panties in a bunch about my pronoun usage, yes, I did use a singular their. The singular their is good.
EDIT 2: I also began a sentence with "But" without attaching an independent clause. This one, I'm not so okay with.
-
I think you can be forgiven based on the fact that you pointed it out rather than trying to hide it with editing.
-
EDIT 2: I also began a sentence with "But" without attaching an independent clause. This one, I'm not so okay with.
Eh, it's effective writing. Lots of great writers start their sentences with conjunctions.
-
the singular their is NOT good.
-
You have two options --
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
John's listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
The first has John as the subject, and the second has listening as the subject. In the first sentence, "listening to the radio" modifies the subject John, and in the second, "John's" modifies the subject "listening to the radio". As Implode said, these modifiers shouldn't really be integral to the sentences, and the sentence should make a lick of sense without them. So let's take them out:
John is an everyday occurrence.
Listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
Obviously, the second is preferable.
Except it's not actually an extra bit of information. It's the point of the sentence.
If it's the point of the sentence, it should be the subject.
Close, but not quite. You're thinking of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase can always be removed and not modify the structure of a sentence. The subject remains the subject, the verb remains the verb, the object remains the object.
In this case, however, the two sentences are actually equivalent. "John listening to the radio" is what is occurring. It happens every day. It is an everyday occurence.
You can also say that "listening to the radio" is what is occurring. "Listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence" is a perfectly valid statement. In this case, however, the fact that John is doing it is the extra information. It is John's listening to the radio, but listening to the radio is in fact the subject.
Still don't believe me? Consider a hypothethical conversation taking place in the next room.
A: What's going on in there? I hear music.
B: John's listening to the radio. He does it every day.
Or consider this:
A: What is John doing in there?
B: Listening to the radio. He does it every day.
The apostrophe denotes possession, not contraction. It's not "John is listening to the radio". John "owns" the action of listening to the radio, and that act is the subject of the sentence.
-
the singular their is NOT good.
Yeah, but it's replacement is even worse.
EDIT: Or maybe not if you use "one's" instead.
-
"John's listening to the radio" uses a possessive. "John's" is not short for "John is".
-
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
-
You have two options --
John listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
John's listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
The first has John as the subject, and the second has listening as the subject. In the first sentence, "listening to the radio" modifies the subject John, and in the second, "John's" modifies the subject "listening to the radio". As Implode said, these modifiers shouldn't really be integral to the sentences, and the sentence should make a lick of sense without them. So let's take them out:
John is an everyday occurrence.
Listening to the radio is an everyday occurrence.
Obviously, the second is preferable.
Except it's not actually an extra bit of information. It's the point of the sentence.
If it's the point of the sentence, it should be the subject.
*snip*
Yeah, you said about everything I said.
-
anything is better than the singular their.
he, she, he or she.
-
cool argument bro
-
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html (https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html) ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
Yup. "Their" is totally fine.
-
Coincidentally it was only recently I stumbled across some page that mentioned these two and clarified them. Up until then, I had no idea anybody got them confused, although I guess I can now understand why.
-
cool argument bro
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html (https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html) ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
Yup. "Their" is totally fine.
Yeah I really don't care very much, I just try to avoid it.
-
cool argument bro
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html (https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html) ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
Yup. "Their" is totally fine.
Yeah I really don't care very much, I just try to avoid it.
Oooh I thought of another big one. When people say "try and" instead of "try to". You did it correctly, goon, but when people don't it's SO annoying.
-
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
I agree that the singular their is fine, but I don't think the fact that legitimate authors have used it makes it definitely correct. Legitimate authors make grammatical errors, too.
Also, is this thread officially the 'nitpick everyone else's grammar' thread? Because I'm totally on board if it is.
-
<3 grammar
-
lolyouguys
-
its the official copy and paste into microsoft word so i can look smart to my online friends with my super awesome grammar skills on the forum about my favorite genre of music progressive rock dream theater which took its name from an old theater in california that mike portnoys dad suggested who they wrote a song about because he died and mike porntoy left the band and then mike mangini came in the band and it made my dick really hard.
-
BTW, it's "should've" or "should have" not "should of." That one makes me want to punch ovaries. Of grandmothers.
-
Yes. And this too:
All of *a* sudden.
-
You mean, instead of suddenly?
-
The day I learned what i.e. and e.g. stands for cherubim sang with joy.
-
You mean, instead of suddenly?
No. Some people say "all of the sudden" and it is ridiculous.
-
Irregardless.
-
The horrible thing about that one is that now it's considered a legitimate word.
-
BTW, it's "should've" or "should have" not "should of." That one makes me want to punch ovaries. Of grandmothers.
Yeah, that one makes me question the intelligence of whoever uses it.
English has some weird constructions though. One is "You had better do X". "Had" makes no sense in there.
rumborak
-
eg = example
ie - that is
Didn't know people didn't know that.
This exactly. Kids these days!
-
The horrible thing about that one is that now it's considered a legitimate word.
My phone didn't autocorrect it either. I wish it would have said "Wait, are you fucking retarded?"
-
for all intensive purposes
-
for all intensive purposes
I really hope this one was a joke Hayden.
all INTENTS AND purposes.
-
for all intensive purposes
I really hope this one was a joke Hayden.
all INTENTS AND purposes.
Yeah, I've never heard anyone screw that one up.
-
for all intensive purposes
I really hope this one was a joke Hayden.
all INTENTS AND purposes.
I hear people say it all the time. You british people are just so much smarter. I think it's the accent.
-
for all intensive purposes
I really hope this one was a joke Hayden.
all INTENTS AND purposes.
I hear people say it all the time. You british people are just so much smarter. I think it's the accent.
Nothing to do with British and everything to do with knowing what things mean. Pretty sure the vast majority of Americans in this thread/forum would know that one.
You don't write "would of" instead of "would have" just because that's how stupid people say it, do you?
-
I've heard people say "for all intensive purposes" a few times. It's annoying.
And I've also seen "would of" written instead of "would have" and "should of" instead of "should have". In that case, I can understand it because it's the way it's usually pronounced, even though it's wrong. The first one is just people getting it wrong.
Something that might be worth noting is that we're having this discussion on an Internet message board, a medium that not everyone embraces. I don't have any stats to back it up, but if I had to guess, I would think that the average literacy rate (whatever that means) is somewhat higher here than the general population. We have chosen to communicate using a medium that promotes well-written statements and positions, as opposed to the quick-think-type format of a chat room, or text messaging. Again, I don't know, but I'd think that that means more of us would tend to know a bit more about grammar than average, because we use it more and choose to do so. Not necessarily causation, but correlation.
-
And many people slur it all together even more when they talk. So it comes out like, "would a".
-
I type "woulda" and "dunno" and "don't wanna" and stuff like that sometimes, even here, but it's in situations where people understand that it's vernacular speech. Never in a formal paper or anything like that.
-
I'm kind of stuck on the assertion above that using "their" in the singular is somehow wrong.
For example:
I love Dream Theater. I own all of their albums.
Whenever I go to Olive Garden, I love to enjoy one of their Greek Salads.
Those are two grammatically correct sentences, no?
-
"They" in the singular is mostly if you need to be non-specific with gender.
We have "he played soccer" and "she likes ponies", or "his hair was a mess" and "her tits are great" (apologies for possible sexism), but nothing similar that is neutral, which is why "they" or "their" gets used. You'd only really use neutral in two situations: not knowing the gender of the person, or talking about a hypothetical person who could be either gender. The other option is to use "(s)he" or "his/her", but that looks more unwieldy I think.
In those examples you're talking about a group of people, which is why you'd usually use "they".
-
I'm kind of stuck on the assertion above that using "their" in the singular is somehow wrong.
For example:
I love Dream Theater. I own all of their albums.
Whenever I go to Olive Garden, I love to enjoy one of their Greek Salads.
Those are two grammatically correct sentences, no?
When you talk about Dream Theater, you're really talking about more than one person. You own of all the albums that they have made, so you own all of their albums. Same with Olive Garden. You like the Greek salads that they make at Olive Garden, so you like their Greek salads. In this context, they are singular entities but represent a collective.
What I hate is the use of "their" simply because the gender is unknown or unclear, as Rich points out. When Facebook says something like "Dan Smith has updated their status" it's just stupid. 99% of the time, they have the person's gender anyway, it would not be difficult to modify the message to say "updated his status" or "updated her status".
-
When you talk about Dream Theater, you're really talking about more than one person. You own of all the albums that they have made, so you own all of their albums. Same with Olive Garden. You like the Greek salads that they make at Olive Garden, so you like their Greek salads. In this context, they are singular entities but represent a collective.
While I agree with you, that logic becomes a little weak when considering the differences between British and American English in how collective nouns are treated.
-
No, the logic is sound. You may be thinking of how "be verbs" are used differently, but collective possession is expressed the same way, I believe.
-
Ah, yes. That's right. Thank you for clearing that up in my head.
-
What I hate is the use of "their" simply because the gender is unknown or unclear, as Rich points out. When Facebook says something like "Dan Smith has updated their status" it's just stupid. 99% of the time, they have the person's gender anyway, it would not be difficult to modify the message to say "updated his status" or "updated her status".
For me facebook always says his or her. The only times it ever says "their status" is if the person is hiding their gender, for whatever reason they are choosing to do so.
-
the singular their is NOT good.
Nah, singular their is fine. It's been used by plenty of legitimate authors ( https://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html ), and English's lack of a generic "he or she" or "his or her" is really annoying.
-
suppose to
-
Supposably
Also, over the years I've seen many people say/write that the President is "Commander and Chief" of the armed forces.
-
Ooh. I thought of another one that I see all the time. Conditional clause. Use "were" instead of was whenever it's in a clause starting with "if". Like:
If I was -> If I were
If it was -> If it were
-
We don't use the subjunctive whenever the clause starts with an if -- only if the sentence's other clause is in the conditional. E.g., "If I was wrong, I apologize", but "If I were wrong, I would apologize".
-
As usual, you're better at explaining the rule. You're right.
-
Ooh. I thought of another one that I see all the time. Conditional clause. Use "were" instead of was whenever it's in a clause starting with "if". Like:
If I was -> If I were
If it was -> If it were
Wrong.
Use "were" when stating things that are contrary to actual fact and "was" when stating things that aren't.
Examples:
Correct: If I were a smart man, I'd have not broken up with that girl.
Incorrect: If I was a smart man...
Correct: Was I rude? If I was, tell me.
Incorrect: Was I rude? If I were, tell me.
-
I was already corrected once. I get it. :|
-
But slycordinator and theseoafs aren't saying the same thing. It's more clarification than piling on. theseoafs says that you use "were" when it's conditional, slycordinator says to use "were" when it's contrary to actual fact.
Correct: If I were a smart man, I'd have not broken up with that girl.
Incorrect: If I was a smart man...
Correct: Was I rude? If I was, tell me.
Incorrect: Was I rude? If I were, tell me.
In the first example, "were" is correct because the speaker is indirectly saying that he is not smart, so it's a contrary position.
In the second example, the speaker does not know, so it's conditional. Since he does not know whether or not he was actually rude,"were" is incorrect.
-
Ah. Okay.
-
Nah, we basically said the same thing. Use the subjunctive -- the mood to express things contrary actual fact -- in clauses that start with "if" whose corresponding independent clause are in the conditional.
-
batteries sold seperately
-
*batteries not included (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092494/)
-
the singular their is NOT good.
You're right. The singular their is bloody brilliant.
Gender-neutral, accepted by the OED, way less confusing than the hypothetical "your" -- what's not to love?!
-
One thing that has been bugging me: quoting colloquialisms. As Elements of Style says, using quotations like that to show that you are above the use of the word is a major put-off. It's like you're inviting the reader to be a part of a secret society that knows better than to use that word.
It's all over the internet and I'm sure most of you know what I'm talking about.
-
One thing that has been bugging me: quoting colloquialisms. As Elements of Style says, using quotations like that to show that you are above the use of the word is a major put-off. It's like you're inviting the reader to be a part of a secret society that knows better than to use that word.
It's all over the internet and I'm sure most of you know what I'm talking about.
I agree "my brotha".
-
One thing that has been bugging me: quoting colloquialisms. As Elements of Style says, using quotations like that to show that you are above the use of the word is a major put-off. It's like you're inviting the reader to be a part of a secret society that knows better than to use that word.
It's all over the internet and I'm sure most of you know what I'm talking about.
I think that's the point, surely? Says "these are this person's words, not my own, don't shoot the messenger."
It's not that I'm part of a "secret society." (And you can have that as a bit of usage!) I suppose it is a form of snobbery, but it puts - often much-needed - distance between the writer and the quote. All words aren't born equal, and they often carry connotations that you don't at all feel comfortable endorsing. I think it's sometimes only right to hold a word at arm's length and pinch your nose with the other hand as you speak it. Important for clarity's sake, as much as anything else, in a medium where misinterpretation and ambiguity is so common. It's very easy to get inflection wrong on the internet, when we're typing quickly, in a stream of consciousness kind of way. Profoundly silly not to take advantage of whatever signifiers you can. Silly or confident, I guess.
And that applies double to words like butthurt and mansplaining, to name a couple of particularly offensive examples, which are claimed by subcultures I don't particularly approve of, so I would sincerely be a little embarrassed if people thought they were part of my lexicon.
-
Then why not use a different word that you're more comfortable with? Is snobbery the only option?
-
Then why not use a different word that you're more comfortable with? Is snobbery the only option?
Pretty often, yeah. Particularly in discussions. Or with reported speech.
There's a massive difference between "He accused me of being butthurt," and "He accused me of being "butthurt."" First option, it's your word. Second option, it's the smug little internet fellow.
I agree, I like to eradicate the words entirely if possible, but I'd rather slap words in quote marks than parrot guff slang.
-
I like that, Rob. I like that immensely. I'm going to try having a bit of fun. When I want to troll people in P/R, I'm going to respond by just quoting their posts, and then repeating one sentence as a question, with some random word in quotes.
EDIT: This is fun. I think I'm about to push Eric off the deep end. :lol
-
I like that, Rob. I like that immensely. I'm going to try having a bit of fun. When I want to troll people in P/R, I'm going to respond by just quoting their posts, and then repeating one sentence as a question, with some random word in quotes.
EDIT: This is fun. I think I'm about to push Eric off the deep end. :lol
"deep end"?
-
Well, shoot. Busted.
-
Hahaa! I'm sure you'll be very popular.
I know what the quotes are like, they're like a shield! No matter what you write, someone, somewhere, will think you're a prick for it. I'd generally rather they judge me for my own words than for someone else's, so if I find a word distasteful, if not downright offensive, I'm not going to use it myself without making it crystal clear that I disapprove. I'm not saying quotes are to be flapped around lightly, but if the alternative's using an iffy word with no hint of irony I am 100% in favour of putting as much distance as possible between it and myself. Semantics can be a very precise science, and words drop like grenades. If I think someone's used the wrong word or a distasteful word or a word that's just plain ugly, I'll be very careful not to repeat it, and if I have to, I am definitely shielding myself from the explosion. As I said, I'd rather be judged for my own foibles than someone else's. If that foible's "using words precisely," I'm completely okay with that.
Also, while I'm here...
Well they say I learn something new everyday, I was kinda hoping for something a bit more meaningful today, but I'll live with this. Thanks. :tup
Well, here's another thing most people don't know: Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor who created him. The monster actually never has a name.
rumborak
Isn't the monster called Adam?
Could be wrong! Been wrong before.
-
That's one of those things that is wrong, but it's become so widespread that there's no point in even correcting it. Even most of the people who refer to the monster as "Frankenstein" know it's wrong, but simply go with convention.
-
Isn't the monster called Adam?
Could be wrong! Been wrong before.
Sort of, but not really.
From wikipedia:
the creature is often referred to as "Frankenstein", but in the novel the creature has no name. He does call himself, when speaking to his creator, Victor Frankenstein, the "Adam of your labours".