# Ask the Grammar Harpy **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [June 23, 2000, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258 "2000-06-23T00:11:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kilgore\_Trout\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6de8d8/32.png) [@Kilgore\_Trout\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilgore_Trout_1)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2000, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/61 "2000-06-25T09:08:30Z")
any luck finding it yet, **blahedo**? i’d like to know the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/62 "2000-06-26T04:47:23Z")
As long as the word is a foreign word, and has not been absorbed into the English language, use the foreign plural. As soon as it is a fully English word, it gets the English plural. Thus, it is now proper to say viruses & medias, assuming you are talking about several forms of medias, as media is a group noun all by itself. That is, you would not say: “The medias are ganging up on him” But you could say “Of all the medias, I like print the best”. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/63 "2000-06-26T18:42:55Z")
Danielinthewolvesden said: “That is, you would not say: “The medias are ganging up on him” But you could say “Of all the medias, I like print the best”.” UGH! “Of all the medias, I like print the best\*\*\*.”\*\*\*" Has nobody payed attention to this thread? I much prefer this sentence: Of all the forms of media, I like print the best. ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/64 "2000-06-26T21:55:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > any luck finding it yet, **blahedo**? i’d like to know the truth. > \*\* Yup, found it. I’d left it at home instead of my office. Great book, by the way: Pyles and Algeo, _The Origins and Development of the English Language_—I highly recommend it to anyone who finds this thread interesting. 🙂 (Btw, shop around a bit: all the US sites had it for $60 or so, but I ordered it from a British one instead for just £14.) Anyway. The relevant stuff can be found on p. 184, which I will selectively quote: ``A remarkable construction is the use of _his_, _her_, and _their_ as signs of the genitive ( **_his_-genitive** ), as in `Augustus his daughter' (... 1579), `Elizabeth Holland her howse’ (… 1546) … An early example with _his_ is from Ælfric’s translation of the Book of Numbers (made about 1000): `We gesawon Enac his cynryn,' that is, `We saw Anak’s kindred.’ ``On the other hand, many English speakers came to regard the historical genitive ending _-s_ as a variant of _his_. In its unstressed pronunciation, _his_ was and is still pronounced without an /h/, so that `Tom bets his salary' and `Tom Betts’s salary’ are identical in pronunciation. Once speakers began to think of `Mars's armor' as a variant of `Mars his armor,’ … they started to spell the genitive ending _-s_ as _his_. That such confusion did occur is shown by the occasional use of _his_ with females, as in `Mrs. Sands his maid’… _His_ was used when the genitive ending was pronounced as an extra syllable, and _'s_ when it was not, the apostrophe also suggesting that the genitive _-s_ was regarded as a contraction of _his_.’’ More fun quotes relating to this thread: p. 188 ``…a confusion sometimes arose about which word the _n_ belonged with. The Fool’s _nuncle_ in _King Lear_ is due to his misunderstanding of _mine uncle_ as _my nuncle_, and it is likely that _Ned, Nelly,_ and _Noll_ have the same origin from _mine Edward_, _mine Eleanor_, and _mine Oliver_. The confusion is similar to that which today produces _a (whole) nother_ from _another_ (that is, _an other_).’’ pp. 189-90 ``In the neuter, however, an important change took place in the later part of the 16th century, when the new possessive form _its_ arose. The older nominative and objective form _hit_ had lost its _h-_ when unstressed… The corresponding older possessive _his_ remained the usual form in the early years of the 17th century. ``Perhaps because of its ambiguity, _his_ was nevertheless to some extent avoided as a neuter possessive even in Middle English times: an uninflected _it_ occurs from the 14th to the 17th century, and to this day in British dialect usage… Other efforts to replace the ambiguous _his_ as a possessive for _it_ include paraphrases with _thereof_… and _of it_… By analogy with other possessives ending in _'s_, the present-day form (at first written _it’s_, as many unstylish people still write it) began to be used instead of _his_, _its_, or the other options. _Its_ is quite rare in Shakespeare and occurs only twice in Milton’s _Paradise Lost_; but by the end of the 17th century _its_ had become the usual form…’’ And finally, p. 221 ``The choice of case for pronouns is governed by principles quite different from those found in the run of grammar books… The use of _they_, _them_, and _their_ with a singular antecedent has long been standard in English. George McKnight (1928) has specimens of this `solecism' from Jane Austen, Thomas De Quincey, Lord Dunsany, Cardinal Newman, Samuel Butler, and others. The *OED* cites Lord Chesterfield, who may be taken as a model of elegant 18th-century usage, as having written, `If a person is born of a gloomy temper … they cannot help it.’ In America the National Council of Teachers of English has endorsed such use of the pronouns as a way of avoiding sexism in language; it is certainly less self-conscious and more traditional than the legalistic _he or she_ or the variety of concocted pronouns that have been proposed.’’ I think I can’t recommend this book highly enough. ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/65 "2000-06-29T17:52:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Yup, found it. [blah blah blah …] > \*\* Wow. Didn’t mean to shut down the thread like that. Sorry… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kilgore\_Trout\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/6de8d8/32.png) [@Kilgore\_Trout\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilgore_Trout_1)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/66 "2000-06-29T21:23:30Z")
hmmm… interesting, blahedo. can anyone verify this? with a different resource, of course. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/67 "2000-06-29T22:42:21Z")
Cool! Grammar, spelling … now all we need is some linguistics and etymology. I love this stuff!! On the topics so far: I use no-apostrophe-S-with-capitals for abbreviation plurals (PCs, TVs). I’ve changed over from the apostrophe-S form because I like this better. Due to my job, I type a LOT of acronym plurals. Once I got going, I dropped the apostrophes from numbers too. Now I leave that little puppy out whenever I can get away with it. Maybe it helps balance the outrageous overuse of apostrophes (and quotation marks) I see everywhere I go. Is there anything we can do about _that_? My memory agrees with matt\_mcl: the which/that choice depends on whether it’s a restrictive or unrestrictive clause. I use multiple ending punctuation, but I make it up as I go. No rules to follow, so I do whatever seems most appropriate for that particular sentence. I do tend to follow the ‘end with a question mark for a question, end with an exclamation point for an exclamation’ system, though. **Gatsby** - which side of the ‘punctuation in or out of quotation marks’ do you fall on? I follow the parentheses rules myself, as I think the ‘all punctuation belongs inside the quotes’ way looks stupid much too often. If you’re with me, then we’ll storm the walls. If you’re agin me, then _En Garde_! ( **dropzone** can get over it. ;)) As someone reared in a region where “a whole nother” is commonly used, I’ve always been under the impression that it was an emphatic split of ‘another’, similar to “in-F\*CKING-credible” and such. At least that’s the way I use it, as do most people I’ve heard. **Mr. Blue Sky** - ahhh, now THIS is one of my pet peeves. How many years must I rant before English acquires a set of gender-neutral, singular third-person pronouns suitable for application to humans? (It’s been around twenty so far, thanks for asking.) At least now, others are taking up the battle. The Internet Generation may finally do it. **blahedo** , does your nifty book say anything about this? I’ve heard that we used to have one, but it was lost somewhere along the way. As long as we’ve got the mavens collected, could someone go over the shall/will setup? I’ve never gotten the hang of that one. P.S. Thanks for the thread, **AerynSun**! \ ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2000, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/68 "2000-06-29T22:59:03Z")
This is in no way an attempt to encapsulate the uses of will and shall, just what I’ve seen so far. Shall is used in questions. Will is used in statements. People who think they are smart use shall as a form of “I might.” My 2nd grade teacher seemed to think this was the way to go. She was, of course, wrong, but that’s another story. Example: “Shall I get the pot so I can boil the water?” Example: “I will get the pot so I can boil the water.” Now, there may well be more nitpicky ways of stating this. I may well be wrong. I’ve never heard definitively that this is the case; I have merely observed that it was more often than not. ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/69 "2000-06-30T01:08:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > …similar to “in-F\*CKING-credible” and such. > \*\* This is a wonderful little linguistic tidbit and gets brought up in virtually every Linguistics 101 class as an example of infixing. Fun example, and guaranteed to titillate the students. (Now _there’s_ a great word.) > [@](#): > > \*\* > ahhh, now THIS is one of my pet peeves. How many years must I rant before English acquires a set of gender-neutral, singular third-person pronouns suitable for application to humans? (It’s been around twenty so far, thanks for asking.) At least now, others are taking up the battle. The Internet Generation may finally do it. **blahedo** , does your nifty book say anything about this? I’ve heard that we used to have one, but it was lost somewhere along the way. > \*\* It’s in there amongst my other quotings—last one. Since the 16th century or earlier, ‘they’ and related forms has been used as a singular, gender-neutral pronoun, often in fairly refined language. It was the 19th century prescriptivist grammarians that put the kibosh on it, along with ending sentences with prepositions, splitting infinitives, and various other perfectly good English constructions that had the misfortune of not appearing in Latin. > [@](#): > > \*\* > As long as we’ve got the mavens collected, could someone go over the shall/will setup? I’ve never gotten the hang of that one. > \*\* That’s a tricky one. I would say that very few people actually make the distinction anymore—almost always, when I hear ‘shall’ it’s just someone trying to sound formal. In my dialect at least, they are interchangeable. I _think_ that the distinction used to be that ‘will’ implied a volitional component to the meaning (as if we said today “I want to and will …”), where ‘shall’ was strictly a statement about the future. Hmm… a site on the web ([http://www.edunet.com/english/grammar/modals.html](http://www.edunet.com/english/grammar/modals.html)) claims that ‘shall’ indicates obligation or promise. …and further introspection brings me to the fact that the only time I hear ‘shall’ (aside from people trying to sound formal) is in the phrase “Shall we?” or “Shall we, then?”, often as shorthand for “Are y’all ready to leave yet?” I don’t know what that indicates, but it’s fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/70 "2000-06-30T01:11:42Z")
> [@](#): > > "There’s a lot of X . . . " It depends on what “X” is. It is perfectly correct to say “There is a lot of water in the ocean.” > [@](#): > > Let’s say there is an abbreviation at the end of a sentence. > > i.e. I would like to ship the package to Cal. Vandal, I just have to point out that you probably mean “e.g.,” not “i.e.” (Okay, now I’ll probably improperly capitalize the next sentence, so shoot me.) “I.e.” stands for “id est,” or “that is.” “E.g.” stands for “exempli gratia,” meaning “for example.” ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/71 "2000-06-30T01:18:02Z")
There’s a cartoon y’all should appreciate; it really belongs taped to the door of every grammar crank (like me! ;)): [http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif](http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif). The other Bob the Angry Flower comics are funny too, but this one just takes the cake. (And for the _real_ linguistics geeks, [http://www.angryflower.com/blame.gif.)](http://www.angryflower.com/blame.gif.)) Another good site is SpinnWebe, at [http://www.spinnwebe.com/](http://www.spinnwebe.com/). Check out in particular the _Apostrophe’s_ and _“Quotes”_ features… aw, heck, just read the whole site. He’s taken crankdom to a whole new level. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/72 "2000-06-30T04:02:18Z")
from blahedo: > [@](#): > > **plurals of virus, media, formula** Three interesting cases, to be sure. In Latin, the plural of ‘virus’ was in fact just ‘virus’ (it was a 4th declension defective noun), when it was even used at all (as it more often took a mass-noun meaning). For English it appears that the preferred plural is just ‘viruses’, although the back-formations ‘viri’, ‘virii’, ‘vira’, and various other such things have achieved some currency\*\* When I originally asked the Latin group for the plural, I mentioned what my guess was. In fact, my guess **was** “virus” for reasons identical to yours. But I was corrected. Is it possible that both “vira” and “virus” occur as plural in classical or medieval Latin? ---
**Author:** ![blahedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a4c791/32.png) [@blahedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blahedo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/73 "2000-06-30T17:36:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > When I originally asked the Latin group for the plural, I mentioned what my guess was. In fact, my guess **was** “virus” for reasons identical to yours. But I was corrected. > > Is it possible that both “vira” and “virus” occur as plural in classical or medieval Latin? > \*\* Hunh. Well, that’s what I’d heard. I took Latin in high school, but this was never covered; so I’ll rely on net research. Here’s some: [ul] [li][http://language.perl.com/misc/virus.html---this](http://language.perl.com/misc/virus.html---this) one seems very well-researched, and mostly supports me, but provides some possible alternatives and cites a lot of references.[/li][li][http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtplural.htm---claims](http://www.cknow.com/vtutor/vtplural.htm---claims) _viri_.[/li][li][http://www.bumppo.net/lists/realbasic-nug/2000/01/msg01706.html---an](http://www.bumppo.net/lists/realbasic-nug/2000/01/msg01706.html---an) amusing letter that supports me[/li][li][http://www.m-w.com/wftw/00jan/012800.htm---Merriam-Webster](http://www.m-w.com/wftw/00jan/012800.htm---Merriam-Webster) seems to agree, though again, doesn’t supply references[/li][/ul] Various other sites I found were either of the opinion that there wasn’t a plural, or that it was _viri_, but none of them provide any references (or even any supporting reasoning) other than that first one I posted. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/74 "2000-06-30T18:11:29Z")
I have a question about hyphenation. How does one know when certain word pairs or compound words are supposed to be hyphenated? Bullet proof / bullet-proof Halfwit / half-wit Stain resistant / stain-resistant Service affecting / service-affecting self styled / self-styled My old crutch was to determine if the noun-adjective arrangement was non-standard for English (i.e., the modifier _proof_ follows the noun _bullet_) then the two words needed to be separated by a hyphen. However, this has failed me on several recent occasions (e.g., long-sleeved [shirt]). **iampunah** : Please clarify your nit-pickitty (should that be hyphenated?) position on the placement of closing punctuation & closing quotation marks (hereinafter “QM”). The earlier sentence : > [@](#): > > You don’t see “an helicopter”. You corrected to read as: > [@](#): > > You don’t see “an helicopter.” However, on three grammar/punctuation sites I have visited, it seems to say the punctuation should be placed inside the QM only if it belongs to the quoted material, and outside the QM if it belongs to the sentence as a whole. That would seem to make the 1st version more correct since _an helicopter_ is not, by itself, a sentence and therefore doesn’t deserve a period. Regard: Did somebody say “McDonalds”? or Did somebody say “McDonalds?” Am I correct in stating that the 2nd version is in error? * * * With regard to: But you could say “Of all the medias, I like print the best”. The quoted words are themselves a complete sentence, and can therefore be granted a period thusly: But you could say “Of all the medias, I like print the best.” However, the complete sentence _But you could say" [quoted material including period] "_ itself also needs to be closed with a period thusly: _But you could say “Of all the medias, I like print the best.”._ I found at least one site that says this is permissible. I was able to locate the following [exceptions](http://www.bartleby.com/cgi-bin/texis/webinator/sitesearch/?query=punctuation&db=db&cmd=context&id=38d468dc532#hit1): > [@](#): > > **1**.The true stops should never stand before the second quotation mark except > > **a**.when, as in dialogue given without framework, complete sentences entirely isolated and independent in grammar are printed as quotations. Even in these, it must be mentioned that the true stops are strictly unnecessary; but if the full stop (which alone can here be in question) is used in deference to universal custom, it should be before the quotation mark. > > **b**.when a stop is necessary to divide the first fragment of an interrupted quotation from the second. > **2**.Words that interrupt quotations should never be allowed stops to part them from the quotation. > > **3**.The tone symbols should be placed before or after the second quotation mark according as they belong to the quotation or to the containing sentence. If both quotation and containing sentence need a tone symbol, both should be used, with the quotation mark between them. **everybody else** : How have you dealt with narrow-minded and stubborn college professors who insist that the only way to pass their course is to adopt their bizarre standards of style? I helped out a friend on one of his final papers (I didn’t feel this was wrong because he was at a slight handicap) and changed the phrase “Day and Date:” in the paper’s heading to just plain old “Date:” on the grounds that “day & date” was redundant. Little did I know the instructor made a point of saying that a paper’s heading must contain the full phrase “Day & Date” followed by the date thusly: Day and date: Friday, June 30, 2000. Because of my correction, my friend received a whole letter grade reduction for that one “error”, and another for missing the hyphen that was supposed to be in “long sleeved”. I was incensed because this is supposed to be a class on style of composition, and every guide to style I have ever seen places [wordiness & redundancy](http://www.bartleby.com/64/2.html) on the list of deadly sins. I’m pretty sure that I would have burst into flames right there in the class if it had been me. ---
**Author:** ![Motorgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e36b37/32.png) [@Motorgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Motorgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/75 "2000-06-30T18:20:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\* > Let’s say there is an abbreviation at the end of a sentence. > > i.e. _I would like to ship the package to Cal._ > > Now, notice at the end, there is only one period. What I’m wondering is, would a second period be needed? > > i.e. _I would like to ship the package to Cal…_ > > Whenever I’ve encountered this situation, I’ve always been adding that second period. Am I correct in doing so? > \*\* In the interests of being a pain in the butt, don’t you mean e.g.? ---
**Author:** ![missbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/76d3ee/32.png) [@missbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/missbunny)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/76 "2000-06-30T18:42:47Z")
Opus, in American English, periods and commas NEVER EVER go on the outside of the quotation marks. Colons and semi-colons NEVER EVER go on the inside. Exclamation points and question marks sometimes go inside, sometimes outside, depending on whether the punctuation goes with the entire sentence or just with the quoted portion. Perhaps that is what the sites to which you are referring are saying; if they are in fact saying that whether to put the period, for example, inside or outside depends on something, they are wrong wrong wrong. I’d bet my right arm on it. In your examples: Did somebody say “McDonalds”? or Did somebody say “McDonalds?” You are correct - the second version is wrong, assuming that somebody **stated** the word “McDonalds.” Note this example: Did you say, “Who is she?” You wouldn’t put another question mark outside the quotation mark. (This is the same situation as the McDonalds question, only here the words in quotation marks are in themselves a question, while in the McDonalds example, the word within the marks is not a question.) Or: Did somebody yell out “Cowabunga!”? The exclamation point is included with the quotation marks because it punctuates just the word “cowabunga,” while the question mark is punctuating the entire sentence. However, if the sentence read, "Somebody yelled out “Cowabunga!” you wouldn’t put a period after the quotation mark. ---
**Author:** ![missbunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/76d3ee/32.png) [@missbunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/missbunny)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/77 "2000-06-30T19:07:18Z")
Also, I thought that the text that you provided had a vaguely British tone, so I checked and it does come from a British text, _The King’s English_, 2nd ed., by H. W. Fowler. The rules for how to punctuate when using QMs is different in British English than in American English. My post refers to American English only; I think the difference between the two sets of rules is what confuses many people. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/78 "2000-06-30T19:24:40Z")
\ I try not to hyphenate but to make another way of saying the same thing. For example, “She styled her hair herself,” instead of “Her hair was self-styled,” which thus eradicates the problem. As a rule of thumb, when I don’t see a verb form in there, I don’t use a hyphen. Thus, halfwit, bullet-proof (proofed of bullets), stain-resistant (resistant to stains), service affecting (affecting service), self-styled (styled by yourself). \ I’d go with “anal” or “stringent,” not nit-pickitty myself, just to avoid the problem you ran into there. I say, where you can make it simple, go for it 🙂 \ The word “helicopter” ends the thought. KEY thing to remember: I am telling y’all what I have been brought up to believe. Where I can I’ve given examples to show what I mean, but if you find someone with more pedagogy behind a difference of opinion, feel free to differ with mine. I haven’t run into an instance where what I believe grammatically isn’t correct, but that doesn’t mean I’m perfect. Far from it, in fact, as you’d know if you talked to me. \ I always learned that when a thought is finished within a set of quotation marks, the thought should end within those marks. Keep in mind, though, that this is purely what I have learned. If you have a college prof who says your grade will depend on following the style of writing etc. set before you, by all means drop your qualms about it for that prof. Notice how I managed not to indicate the gender of the prof here. Day and date: Friday, June 30, 2000. \ I’ve always assumed that day means Friday June 30 and date means June 30. I don’t really distinguish between the two other than that. As for long-sleeved, when I don’t know for sure if something should be hyphenated, I find another way of saying it. For example, “a long-sleeved shirt” could also be said to be “a shirt with long sleeves.” Wordy, perhaps, but it’s gotten me out of arguments before. BTW, “thusly” isn’t a word I normally use. I have gotten accustomed to saying “as such” or “as seen here:” and things like those. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2000, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/79 "2000-06-30T22:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, “thusly” isn’t a word I normally use. I have gotten accustomed to saying “as such” or “as seen here:” and things like those. I surmised that by reading your previous posts, therefore your statement was superfluous 😛 With regard to the QM fiasco, I believe the Brits have it right. I just wonder who looked at the rule and felt it needed to be changed; it just feels better to me to place the period last in order to close the quotes _and_ the containing sentence, instead of just the quoted material. With regard to Day & date, my point was that anybody looking at: Friday, June 30, 2000 should automatically know that _Friday_ is the **day** and is a subset of the **date** , which is Friday, June 30, 2000. Does the phrase lose clarity or meaning by eliminating the word _Day_? No, therefore it is superfluous & redundant. > [@](#): > > For example, “a long-sleeved shirt” could also be said to be “a shirt with long sleeves.” You know what? That’s actually what I resorted to because I wasn’t sure if _long-sleeved_ should be hyphenated. The goofball professor crossed-out the entire phrase and wrote “long-sleeved shirt” in the margin. I tell you, you can’t win with this lady unless you can read her mind. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2000, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258/80 "2000-07-01T00:24:50Z")
\ You’ve got some problems with this statement. I would have said: 1. I surmised that by reading your previous post. Therefore, your statement was superfluous. 2. I surmised that by reading your previous post, so your statement was superfluous. 3. Your statement was superfluous because I surmised that by reading your previous post. I could come up with more variations, but I think you get my point. \ I don’t know what to tell you other than that this is the first place I’ve ever been corrected on this matter. FWIW, my father majored in English in college and he used to correct me on lots of this shit. \< . . . should automatically know that Friday is the day and is a subset of the date, which is Friday, June 30, 2000. Does the phrase lose clarity or meaning by eliminating the word Day? No, therefore it is superfluous & redundant.\> To you it is. Some people understand different things from those than you do. For example, I have a friend who understands by the word “man” every human no Earth. By the word “man” I understand a physically mature person with a penis, no breasts, etc. We are none of us perfect. [ed. note: that’s a common phrase in my family, and as such none of you is allowed to correct it] \ Well, maybe you could have offered to get the long-sleeved shirt out of her ass. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-grammar-harpy/23258.md?page=5)