The more I read your posts, the more I like your style. Having had the pleasure of meeting you in person and engaging in drunken rhetoric with you, I know that these posts are not anomolous.
It amazes me how often we say the same thing with totally different words and styles. I have not heard from you in some time, as I believe that you want this to remain a BBQ pit. So eat my shorts.
~Santi.
P.S.-If you don’t stop plagiarizing me, I am going to have to take you out back and Rodney King you with a sack of old door knobs.
esprix: I did not start this thread. And I do not use poor grammar. I admit my writing here is stuffed with typos, as I am a very bad typist. I really did not think that the type of people that I hoped to argue, agree, and discuss issues with, would think that some typos meant I was some sort of sub-literate. And your opinion of “tho” is simply your opinion. Oxford accepts it, and without any caveats. They add caveats to “sub” or “non” standard “var.” If they just listed it becuase a lot of people spelled it that way, they would have added “colloq”. Shakespeare used it too, but I admit spelling was a bit looser then. And the fact we are having this arguement means that there are NO universally accepted sources. Why on earth should it be spelled “though”? Does it “rime” (and I used that as Oxford accepts it as an “archaic var.” of rhyme)with “plough”, or “through”? And we spell that “plow” nowadays anyway. “Tho” is better, and acceptable.
So what you are saying is that I posted in the Pit, made some statements you disagree with, and type poorly, and so it is OK for you to launch a personal attack on me. I guess that that is within the rules here, but it was uncalled for. And if you HAD just “pointed out my errors” I would not “whine”. But you did not attack my typos, you attacked ME. Personal attacks are a mark of immaturity.
And Necros: most of those “random caps” are titles- which are properly capitalized. You would not capitalize “a grand jury” but you would cap “the County Grand Jury.” And, yes, there is some awkward sentence construction. On “Mayvens”, that is how somebody spelled it, and that is why it was in quotes. The second misspelling was a simple typo. Look, I often type here late at nite, and I do not spend a lot of time proof-reading my work. So, if you are going to attack me for being careless, you have a point. Since I am not getting paid for this, I’m not going to spend a long time double-checking everything I type. That has nothing to do with “literacy”, altho I might accept lazyness.
Necros: Are you counting “writing a grand jury report” as “being published?” I know another poster is; however, I just don’t see it as being on the same level as authorship.
Daniel – I’m sorry, I’m going to have to disagree on the use of the word “tho” in serious documents as well. Although it certainly is a word, and Shakespeare did use it, for orthographic consistency, you should spell it “though.” It looks a little bit silly when you look through several documents and see “though” here and “tho” there. Should “though” be spelled “tho”? I would say it certainly make sense. Our pronounciations are in the 20th century, while our orthography is in the 12th. “Knight” used to be pronounced as “K-NEE-HHT.” I concede that this is stupid, but why add to the confusion offering up additional spellings? Remember how confusing it was to read Chaucer where every word in second reference seems to be spelled different than the first? There was a clear, logical reason for establishing a recognized list of spelling, and that was to make communication clearer.
I think eventually our spellings will change. Especially with the Internet and the new style of English language used on it. My grammar pet peeve is that grammarians want to artifically impose rules that don’t make communication clearer. I’ve already explained my beef about the rules against double negatives, split infinitives and dangling prepositions. People who break these rules do not communicate in any less clear a manner. Hence, they are not necessary. Seems most people agree with me on these grammatical points.
However, an inconsistent orthography does add to the confusion. If you want to simplify it, I am 100% in favor of that effort, but I don’t know how it can be done in an effective manner. This change will have to come about naturally.
Sorry, but these certainly are random capitals. None of those (except “I”) need to be upper case. Especially “a large Federal Dept.” which is clearly meant as a common noun, which the presence of that indefinite article. We are not writing German or 18th century English here, Dan.
I am also against grammarians telling me how certain words are properly used. “Presently,” as well all know, means “in a short time.” However, it can also mean “currently.” This has become an acceptable definition. Does that add to the confusion? Yes. But most people I know read “presently” as “currently,” and I feel the old definition is on its way out. Unfortunately, grammarians tend to describe the way people talked 20,40,60 years ago. Words that have long shifted in meaning are still being “saved” from the English language by people like William Saffire. Unfortunately, I don’t think that does us any good. As we have said, our language is living and fluid. It is better for us to recognize the change rather than force old meanings down people’s collective throats. If people don’t really communicate this way, why force it? If people are not confused as to the meaning, why be didactic about it?
…
As with the Oxford “s” vs “'s” rule for words like CDs.
Of course it doesn’t apply to single letters! Ps may be fine
but As is also a word, as in “like and as.” Hence the apostrophe to avoid the confusion.
Dannie: Are you or are you not familiar with the term “preponderance of evidence?”
BTW: I merely indicated a supposition. An attack would be along the lines of “You ass! You don’t know all the letters, let alone how to write for publication!” Just in case you missed it the first time, that is what an attack would’ve looked like.
Also, you admitted to being “some sort of ‘fundie.’” From where I sit, it seems as though you (and othe members of the Church of the Nine Commandments) loosely follow the Decalogue, so spare us the naysaying. (That is an attack, and it’s not unprovoked.)
sigh
Actually, no; you’re wrong.
Titles aren’t capitalized unless they really are titles, and not merely names of positions. For instance, in your writing below:
The presiding judge of the <whatever district> Superior Court, district attorney and county counsel are not capitalized. But, if it had been District Attorney Danielinthewolvesden, it would be. And as pulykamell adroitly pointed out, you have other random caps as well.
Monty: Well, I wouldn’t equate writing a grand jury report and being published. Did I? If so, I apologize. I would, however, consider it professional writing. I wrote for newspapers for several years, so I guess I could be considered published (and, in fact, most writers’ organizations do consider writing for newspapers being published), but I don’t consider myself that. I’ll wait until my novel comes out.
No, you did not. Danieletc. did. FWIW, the titles of the two types of jury commonly found in the United States are:
(1) Grand Jury (“Grand” is part of the title; thus, if the first word is capitalized, the second word is.)
&
(2) Petite Jury (“Petite” is part of the title.)
If one writes “a grand Jury report,” then one writes a mighty fine report about a jury. If one writes “a Grand Jury report,” then one is writing the Grand Jury’s report.
To tell you the truth, I don’t equate clerking for the DA with “professional writing.” I equate it with being a clerk.
however, Danietc wrote neither. he wrote “grand Jury Report,” whereas it should be “Grand Jury report” or perhaps even “Grand Jury Report” if you’re gonna keep the style of capitalizing everything in sight.
fine – “misplaced” capital letters. or “incorrectly used”
capital letters. :b
but it looks pretty damned close to “random” to me. fairly arbitrary, don’t ya think?
BTW, that JSW quote is brilliant! I’ve never heard it before. That’s goin’ into my little mental quote box.
That certainly does describe me. I am aware of my ignorance. I am here to learn. If you see me acting in the manner that you describe please let me know. I would appreciate your view on my lack of knowledge. Not that I will accept it blindly, but I will keep in mind the greater sum of your experience compared to my own.
Monty: what drugs are you on? And why are you not sharing? Where did you get the idea I was a member of the “Church of the Nine Commandments”? I have never even heard of them. Nor do I follow the “Decalogue”, or whatever you mean by that. Nor have I ever said or implied I was some kind of fundie. I was a member of the Methodist church when I was in High School (they had a pretty cool “youth singles” group with some really nice babes), nearly 30 years ago. I resigned as I did not care for their anti-gun politics. I would describe myself as a somewhere between a doubting Christian & an agnostic, with a large dose of Secular Humanism thrown in.
Maybe you think I’m some sort of fundie as I can cite the Bible pretty well. I got that ability from a college course, plus Issac Asimov’s book, plus lots of infependent reading. I guess that means Asimov was some sort of fundie,
too? Or maybe you got the idea from the same place you got that idea I started this thread?
And I also wrote for $$, besides my recent Gov’t. writing. True, I hardly was on the watch list for the Pulitzer prize, but there was a few bucks coming in. And when you are a member of the CIVIL Grand Jury (and yes it should be “capt’ed”), and perform investigations & write up the Official Report (note correct caps), you are doing more than clerking. I believe you may be thinking of a criminal grand jury (note no caps), where one might write up the deliberations & results. That is “clerking”, even tho it is important.
Anytown, U.S.A.–May 25, 2000.
Grammar Police are shooting it out with desperadoes known as the Gramma Gangstas.
Rookie cop picks his way cautiously through the shoot-out zone, ducking under yellow “Police Line” tape.
“Message from downtown, Lieutenant.”
Grabs Post-It note, reads it. “Damn!” Furiously tosses butt of cigar into gutter and grinds it into the concrete. “There’s been another outbreak over at the New Yorker. Somebody’s SpellCheck failed and allowed the use of ‘throws’ where ‘throes’ was clearly intended. And as if that’s not bad enough, Merrill Lynch is back.”
Rookie listens, wide-eyed. “Merrill Lynch?”
“Yeah. New ad campaign–says, get this, ‘the arts is not the most stable career’.”
“Wow! What’s our response to that, Lieutenant?”
“Well, we don’t have a mandate for Madison Avenue–that’s for the Big Boys to deal with. But we can put the fear of God into the New Yorker editor who missed the ‘throws/throes’ thing.”
“What about the author? Isn’t she legally liable for misusing a word like that?”
“Yeah, but she’s from New Jersey, it’s out of our jurisdiction.” Shouts to SWAT team, “Okay, let’s wrap this up, we’ve got an appointment uptown.”
Lieutenant rolls down the car window. “What?”
Sarge hands him two more Post-It notes. "Got an update, Loot–the SpellCheck violation was over at Harper’s, not the New Yorker."
Lieutenant shrugs. “New Yorker, Harper’s, they’re all the same, just tools of the East Coast intellectual Mafia. What else you got?”
“This just came in. We’ve got a 2023, Creative Spelling with Malice Aforethought, a little girl named, get this–G-I-A-S-Z-M-Y-N-E, Jasmine, get it?”
“Yeah, yeah, I got it,” he replies sourly. Rolls the car window back up. Drives away.
You’re correct - as pugluvr pointed out, he did. You were, however, the first person to bitch about having to use proper rules of English syntax.
As I already said, no one thinks you’re “sub-literate,” but arguing that proper grammar/typing/syntax “just ain’t for me” makes you out to be a proud and self-proclaimed imbecile. Since you do otherwise seem like a sharp guy, why is it so hard for you to communicate properly in English? Why are you a self-professed rebel without a clue? Yes, you’re getting your point across in your own “style,” but saying, “I’m going to use ‘tho’ instead of ‘though’ 'cause Oxford says I can!” makes you a boor. It’s only art when somebody understands it; otherwise, it’s just overpriced mastrubation.
Tell me, did they accept “tho” in your jury reports, or just in your gAmErZZZ mag? We’re not having this argument because there aren’t recognized authorities on the English language, we’re having it because you refuse to accept their advice. (And I’m not sure what the etymology of a word has to do with how it is currently being used.) I’m very happy for you that the Oxford dictionary lists “tho;” however, since my problem is not with the word itself but the way you’re using it grammatically, I will point this out to you:
[quote]
Don’t abbreviate the following:
(In formal academic prose it is considered bad form to abbreviate words simply to save space, time, or energy.)
[list][li]Words such as through (thru), night (nite).[/li][li]Days of the week or months of the year (in the normal flow of text).[/li][li]Words at the beginning of a sentence.[/li][li]People’s names such as Chas. (for Charles) or Jas. (for James), unless those abbreviations have come to be accepted as nicknames for those particular indivduals.[/li][li]State’s names such as Mass. (for Massachusetts) or Conn. (for Connecticut). When appropriate (as in the addresses for envelopes), use the postal office’s approved two-letter abbreviations: MA, CT (without periods).[/li][li]Courses such as econ (for economics) or poli sci (for political science).[/li][/quote]
(Emphasis mine)
Now, if even Professor Charles Darling at Capital Community College in Hartford, Connecticut (http://go.to/grammar) can see that using “tho” instead of “though” is unacceptable for a published document, I’m sure you can as well. If you want to use it on the SDMB, or use it in e-mail, or use it with your friends, or use it in your diary, fine, but it ain’t gonna fly in a letter, report or newspaper.
Oh, puh-lease, Mary. To quote myself, “Get over your cheap sorry self.” I thought you could take a little jab here and there. My sincerest apologies if it offended your delicate sensibilities.
So is using “tho,” you lazy dumbass. Touting it as a badge of honor doesn’t make it any less asinine.
esprix: so you believe a professor at a community college is a greater expert on the english language than the Oxford dictionary. Besides him, you are probably the only one. “Tho” is not an abbrev of “though”, it is a “var.”, and it is a “var.” which has been around for at least 400 years. It makes more sense than “though”, also. If Oxford had thought that “tho” was less than proper, they would have put a caveat on it, such as “colloq”. They also accept “thru”, but not “nite”*. They also allow you to spell grey/gray. They allow you to put a “u” in “color”, but only as a “brit.” Your arguement show exactly what I mean, there is not “international tribunal of the English language”, just several experts, who often disagree. And you folks are getting all huffy, and saying I’m sub-literate, use poor grammar, and are wrong, just because I accept diferent experts than you. That’s not very mature. I am sorry if I have offended you somehow, esprix, we usually seem to be on the same side.
I do feel we should use proper grammar, but we are allowed to accept “the proper grammar” (there are several), which fits our individual style. Also, someone should put a stop to those mavens who want to roll the english lang. back 40 years.
*which I happen to like, in certain (colloq.)usages, oh well…
No, I believe he has a better grasp of the English language than you do.
And again, I’m not arguing that it isn’t a word. I’m saying that it’s not acceptable to use for any kind of publishable work. I will ask you for the third time, did your use of the word “tho” make it past the editors of your jury reports?
To you, but certainly not to me, and what this has to do with anything I’m not sure.
Yeah, and I’ll bet you never use “nite,” because it’s not in the Oxford dictionary. :rolleyes:
You’re using a dictionary, and I’m using a grammatical guideline - you’re comparing apples to oranges. Just because a spark plug exists in a car doesn’t mean it makes the air conditioner work.
You know, for the third time, you are not “sub-literate,” but since I’ve typed it three times and you’ve yet to read it, I suppose you actually are sub-literate. Thank you for pointing out my error. :rolleyes:
Use whatever “style” you want, Daniel, and I’m sure folks (especially here) will be more than happy to point out when they have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about because you can’t be bothered sticking to the rules of the language we all speak to communicate ideas to one another. Just pray I never edit anything you write.
Where did you get the idea I was a member of the “Church of the Nine Commandments”? I have never even heard of them. Nor do I follow the “Decalogue”, or whatever you mean by that. Nor have I ever said or implied I was some kind of fundie. I was a member of the Methodist church when I was in High School (they had a pretty cool “youth singles” group with some really nice babes), nearly 30 years ago. I resigned as I did not care for their anti-gun politics. I would describe myself as a somewhere between a doubting Christian & an agnostic, with a large dose of Secular Humanism thrown in.