Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Goober5000 on March 01, 2006, 12:56:01 am

Title: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Goober5000 on March 01, 2006, 12:56:01 am
Okay, come on guys, one more time:

"Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S; but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S."  Scalawag.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Taristin on March 01, 2006, 01:23:51 am
Okay, come on guys, one more time:

"Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S; but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S."  Scalawag.

The trouble is that that's contradictory to names and ownership. We say Goober's item. Or we say the tree's branches. So in our minds, It's looks like belonging to, rather than being a contraction.  It's one of those words that just suck. >..>
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 01, 2006, 02:25:00 am
Unless your command of the English language is flawless like mine. In fact, the only thing that rivals it is my humility.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 01, 2006, 05:00:23 pm
The trouble is that that's contradictory to names and ownership. We say Goober's item. Or we say the tree's branches. So in our minds, It's looks like belonging to, rather than being a contraction.

Except that it is a pronoun, and no pronouns use apostrophes in their possessives.  Yours, his, hers, its.  See?

Quote
It's one of those words that just suck. >..>

You mean, sucks. :nervous:
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Nuke on March 01, 2006, 05:16:33 pm
i reserve the right to butcher the english language :D
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 01, 2006, 07:08:43 pm
Quote
You mean, sucks.
Nope, "suck". The verb's subject is "words", not "it".
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Rictor on March 01, 2006, 10:52:31 pm
Okay, come on guys, one more time:

"Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S; but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S."  Scalawag.

Good going Professor Grammar, you put the end quote in the wrong place!

 ;) ;)

And if you would care to direct you gaze upwards, you'll notice that I did use the proper form, without the apostrophe.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 01:27:18 am
Quote
You mean, sucks.
Nope, "suck". The verb's subject is "words", not "it".

Minus ten points for reading comprehension.  The verb's subject is the noun phrase "one of those words".  One is singular. :p

Good going Professor Grammar, you put the end quote in the wrong place!

No I didn't.  I'm quoting the entire sentence. :p

Quote
And if you would care to direct you gaze upwards

You mean "your"?

Quote
you'll notice that I did use the proper form, without the apostrophe.

I was referring to Swantz's YTMND. :)
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 02, 2006, 03:53:31 am
Are you sure? Because the way I learned it, when you have a noun phrase like "one of those words", the verb is being done by the plural noun, not the pronoun. It's like the sentence, "He was one of the few who were spared." It's being described as "one" because it's doing the noun indirectly by virtue of membership in the collective. I remember having this discussion in English class and it turned into a similar debate.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 02:18:19 pm
Are you sure? Because the way I learned it, when you have a noun phrase like "one of those words", the verb is being done by the plural noun, not the pronoun. It's like the sentence, "He was one of the few who were spared." It's being described as "one" because it's doing the noun indirectly by virtue of membership in the collective. I remember having this discussion in English class and it turned into a similar debate.

True, collective nouns use plural verbs.  But the subject of Raa's sentence wasn't a collective noun, it was the singular noun "one".  The subject of your sentence isn't a collective noun either; it's "he", as in "he was one".  The phrase "who were spared" is subordinate to the collective noun "few", which is itself subordinate to the phrase "one of the few" which is the object of the sentence. :)
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 02, 2006, 05:14:55 pm
I still feel not on the same page. The subject of Raa's sentence is "It", which is followed immediately by the verb "is", then the noun phrase "one of those words". The relative pronoun "that" refers to "words", which means, according to what I thought was the case, that the verb "suck" is being done by "words". But, if I understand correctly, you're saying that "suck" is actually being done by "one", which I'm having a harder time wrapping my brain around logically.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Flipside on March 02, 2006, 05:19:47 pm
1 g0t p41nz0rs in t3h br41nz0rs!!
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 05:41:16 pm
I still feel not on the same page. The subject of Raa's sentence is "It", which is followed immediately by the verb "is", then the noun phrase "one of those words". The relative pronoun "that" refers to "words", which means, according to what I thought was the case, that the verb "suck" is being done by "words". But, if I understand correctly, you're saying that "suck" is actually being done by "one", which I'm having a harder time wrapping my brain around logically.

No, the relative pronoun "that" refers to "one". :)

As a general rule of thumb, when in doubt, remove phrases that don't change the core meaning.  So:

Quote
It's one of those words that just sucks.

becomes

Quote
It's one that just sucks.

If you wanted to emphasize words instead of one, the second sentence would read:

Quote
They're words that just suck.

See where the verbs link up?

1 g0t p41nz0rs in t3h br41nz0rs!!

:lol:

Back in the day this would have been standard sentence diagramming in any grammar course, but the public school system nowadays is terribly superficial. :(
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 02, 2006, 05:57:25 pm
Okay, I see what you're saying. It's disconcerting, though. But that's my inner demon to battle.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: watsisname on March 02, 2006, 07:13:05 pm
I just love how this topic went from a discussion on Soviet pig launching to a discussion of proper grammar.  :wakka:  Oh dear, I hope my Bill Gates spell checking system doesn't fail me now...
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: achtung on March 02, 2006, 09:03:49 pm
Wow, finally got to see a Grammar Inquisition.
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 10:06:06 pm
I just love how this topic went from a discussion on Soviet pig launching to a discussion of proper grammar. :wakka:

Good point. :lol: Thread split.
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: WeatherOp on March 02, 2006, 10:17:06 pm
Goob rocks.

*hides with his poor southern *gramar. ;)

*note: The other "m" was left out of porpose. Why? Cause I wanted.
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Ace on March 02, 2006, 10:19:36 pm
Prescriptive grammar is so pase'...
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Rictor on March 02, 2006, 10:26:29 pm
Goober, how do you survive on the Internet with the present state of affairs? I mean, you must go into shock pretty regularly, what with all the illiterate 14 year-olds which infest most forums and chat rooms. Do you have some sort of special goggles that filter out the soul-crushing, blinding stupidity, and if so could you send me a pair
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 11:27:17 pm
Nah, I don't go into any sort of OCD-induced fits over poor spelling or grammar, if that's what you're thinking. :) And I don't mind 1337-speak or AOL-kiddie chat abbreviations; I use both of those myself on occasion.

What I'm trying to draw attention to, if I had to spell it out (no pun intended), is the poor quality of education nowadays and the fact that very few people self-educate themselves anymore.  It used to be that you taught yourself just as much, if not more, as you learned in school.  Nowadays hardly anybody teaches himself anything, and self-discipline is practically a lost art.  Witness the preponderance of automatic spell-checking substituted for actual proofreading.

One of the easiest and quickest ways to highlight this is by calling attention to grammar and spelling. :) Sometimes I do this to the point of fastidiousness, and sometimes I don't do it at all.  It generally depends on the thread.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Spectre-7 on March 02, 2006, 11:31:09 pm
Quote from: Goober5000
blah blah blah elitist blather blah blah blah

As long as we're going to be prescriptivists, it's wise to at least be "correct".  Let's take a glance at the original sentence, shall we?

Quote
It's one of those words that just suck.

The above, even to the most thorough prescriptivist's eye, is correct.

It = Subject
"is" = Verb, truncated into the contraction "it's"
one = Object
of those words = prepositional phrase describing object
that just suck = restrictive clause, describing previous prepositional phrase.

Quote
As a general rule of thumb, when in doubt, remove phrases that don't change the core meaning.

Let's do that, shall we?
Quote
It's one of those words that just suck.

We'll untruncate the contraction.

Quote
It is one of those words that just suck.

We'll take out the "just", as it's an adjective adding precious little meaning to the sentence.

Quote
It is one of those words that suck.

That's the most this sentence can be simplified without drastically altering its meaning.  Were the adverbial phrase "of those words" removed, the subordinate restrictive clause "that suck" would be modifying the original phrase "it is one", in which case the verb "suck" would need to agree with its (new) subject "it".

That's not the case.

You're also mistaken in labelling "that" as a relative pronoun.  In this case, the word is working as a conjunction, joining the verb "suck" to the adverbial phrase "of those words".

I think I can illustrate this in a way that's more transparent.  Rather than stripping the sentence down, let's reorganize it.  Adverbial phrases are, after all, very mobile, and can often be moved without changing the inherent meaning of a sentence.  By changing the order of clauses, we can more clearly see the meaning of each.
Quote
Of those words that just suck, it's one .

This retains a nearly identical meaning, but is certainly phrased in a less than ideal fashion.  It is clearly distinct from the way in which you were mis-correcting the sentence, however.  Let's see what happens when we dislocate its adverbial phrase in your version.

Quote
Of those words, it's one that just sucks."

This clearly expresses an idea of "it" being distinct from the super-set "those words", as one that sucks.  That's clearly not the original intent of the sentence.  The original author was trying to point out that the "it" is a member of the group "those words that just suck".  Thus, the original sentence was, as previously stated, entirely correct.

All of that being said, don't correct people's grammar.  Your grammarian certificate has been revoked.  You're not trying to teach them anything.  You're trying to prove that you're better than them, and no one likes that.  Rules of grammar are highly plastic, and anyone who believes in their strict application is surely deluded, and almost entirely ignorant of the nature of the english language.

Thank you and good night.
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: bfobar on March 02, 2006, 11:40:07 pm
...and I thought quantum theory II was hard!
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Goober5000 on March 02, 2006, 11:40:36 pm
Actually, Spectre, my original critique was correct.  But you've brought an interesting new flavor to the debate, one that deliciously highlights the ambiguous nature of the English language. :)

I'll try to explain it in mathematical form, using parentheses for prioritization.  There are actually two (and perhaps more) ways to read the sentence:

Quote
(It is one of those words) that just sucks.

Quote
It is one of those (words that just suck).

So both sucks and suck are correct, but I was too focused on the first meaning to realize the existence of the second.  Thank you, Spectre, for pointing it out. :)
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Spectre-7 on March 02, 2006, 11:47:31 pm
 :p
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Fragrag on March 03, 2006, 03:09:01 am
To entire thread:

What now the what now :confused:
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Flipside on March 03, 2006, 07:23:10 am
....Although the first 'blah' from Goober in your quote really ought to have had a capital letter, considering it was the start of a sentence.....

:nervous:
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: aldo_14 on March 03, 2006, 07:32:15 am
y r u arging on gramr on teh intrenet like pure mad noobs?!1111(etc)
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Flipside on March 03, 2006, 07:36:08 am
I always thought my Grandma was the Inquisition.....
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: vyper on March 03, 2006, 07:37:31 am
Pure mad mental munters...
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: aldo_14 on March 03, 2006, 07:44:15 am
Pure mad mental munters...

Haw, ya rocket!  Bolt afore a launch ye!
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Spectre-7 on March 03, 2006, 08:14:32 am
Quote
....Although the first 'blah' from Goober in your quote really ought to have had a capital letter, considering it was the start of a sentence.....

Aww crap, I messed up the punctuation too...  And there's, like, no subject, object or verb.  Holy moly!  There doesn't appear to be a sentence there at all!  What am I going to do!?!?

OH NOOOOOOES!!!

The correct version should read:
Quote
-=!|bLaH bLaH bLaH ELITIST MALARKY BlAh BlAh BlAh|!=-

Sorry, my mistake.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet t
Post by: Grug on March 03, 2006, 09:02:40 am
When in doubt, read the manual / instructions / wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe)

Quote
The apostrophe in it's marks a contraction of it is or it has. The possessive its has no apostrophe. Many find this confusing. It might help to remember that there is no apostrophe in any of his, hers, its, whose (see below), ours, yours, or theirs. Other pronouns do take a possessive apostrophe: one's, everybody's (along with everyone's, anybody's, and similar), somebody else's, etc.
Title: Re: A Grammar Inquisition (split from the Soviet thread)
Post by: Ford Prefect on March 03, 2006, 12:32:24 pm
The correct version should read:
Quote
-=!|bLaH bLaH bLaH ELITIST MALARKY BlAh BlAh BlAh|!=-

Sorry, my mistake.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001843.html
Well I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm only going to live once, I'm going to indulge in as much elitism as my heart desires.
Title: Re: Soviet science at its finest.
Post by: Roanoke on March 03, 2006, 12:38:02 pm
"Of those words, it's one that just sucks."

[/quote


"It's one of those words. It just sucks."

Wham! Bam!