| | | 
11-19-2012, 06:54 AM
|
#106 | | Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 689
|
Amen, Marsian. In the spirit of OP's topic & related article, I just thought it would be kind of fun (not to mention a little fuddy-duddy-ish) to come up with some life skills experiences that a HS senior ought to have before attending college. In fact, one could say that more 18-year-olds would be better prepared for the transition, especially living away from home. That's all. Forced labor at a gulag?! Uh, no. But a summer of mowing lawns, unloading railcars, bagging groceries? Absolutely--I did all of 'em at various points in those formative years.
ONLY problem with younghoss' statement, sad to say, is that going to and graduating from college is no guarantee anymore of a 'better' situation eventually than the post-digger. But no one can deny that a degree gives you a fighting chance.
| 
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 08:14 AM
|
#107 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,747
|
I wouldn't entirely blame it on the K-12 education but I wouldn't blame it entirely on "sending the wrong students to college" either.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 12:21 PM
|
#108 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,896
|
"If the house belongs to the Edge family it is the Edges' house.
If the house belongs to the Edges family it is the Edgeses' house
If the house belongs to the U2 guitartist it's The Edge's house."
This is correct.  I clerked for a Judge Williams who reinforced my already firm status as a grammar b---h. The only part of this that is subject to a style question is when forming a possessive where the name sounds like a plural, but is NOT plural. "Judge Williams' chambers" and "Judge Williams's chambers" may both be correct. In my Judge Williams's chambers, the latter style was required.
It's enough to make you wish that the Old English -en plural (which survives in the word children) had won out. We only have two cases in English, and we mark them the same way!
We all know there wasn't any possessive intended on those welcome mats and mailboxes. It's just a misinformed way of forming a plural. That's what makes me cry.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 12:31 PM
|
#109 | | Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 14,571
| Quote: |
It's enough to make you wish that the Old English -en plural (which survives in the word children) had won out. We only have two cases in English, and we mark them the same way!
| Child / children and ox/ oxen? How about woman / women and man / men -- where did that plural come from?
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 01:13 PM
|
#110 | | Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 7,503
|
From German; "en" is a standard plural suffix. From Wikipedia: Quote: |
Germans have resided in the United Kingdom throughout its history. The Anglo-Saxons were partly from what is now Germany, and created the notion of England as a Germanic country. Likewise, the English language was descended from their dialects.
|
Last edited by vonlost; 11-19-2012 at 01:30 PM.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 01:30 PM
|
#111 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 223
|
I do a lot of technical writing and find I consult my grammar usage book regularly just to be sure. Even there, options exist...e.g. to use biannual or semiannual. Like a previous post, when in doubt I simply restructure my sentence!
Funny how we've diverged from the original OP post, but I have enjoyed it immensely!
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 02:00 PM
|
#112 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,080
| Drat!
I just realized I've been misspelling "Possessive". In addition to my apostrophic faux pas.
I usually don't make too many spelling errors.
And Luminosity said I was getting smarter last week.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 02:02 PM
|
#113 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,080
|
^^^
That's "Lumosity".
I give up.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-19-2012, 05:23 PM
|
#114 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,558
| Quote: |
I don't know that it was really a debate as much as I was wrong and everybody else was right.
| I think you are being too hard on yourself, Bovertine. Linguists look at language as descriptive -- living and changing -- whereas grammarians look at language as prescriptive -- permanently locked into rules of right and wrong. Over extended periods, the linguists will win every time, because language is essentially a popularity contest and rules will change eventually when no one bothers to follow them anymore.
Case in point: the current use of "they" as a singular to avoid the awkwardness of he/she. This is still grammatically wrong, but should it be? "You" can be used as either singular or plural (as least in the North where we don't have a you-all) so why can't "they" be used in the same manner?
| 
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 11:19 AM
|
#115 | | Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 940
|
interesting.
Years ago when I was in grade school, masculine was correct even when both genders were the subject. Today, the "he/she" is expected. Awkward, I think, but it is what is considered correct today.
Maybe "they" will become correct too, in time.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 11:39 AM
|
#116 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 948
| Quote: |
Originally Posted by younghoss Years ago when I was in grade school, masculine was correct even when both genders were the subject. Today, the "he/she" is expected. Awkward, I think, but it is what is considered correct today.
Maybe "they" will become correct too, in time. | I typically use the generic "he" and do not worry about being PC. Some writers use the generic "she". Some people think "mankind" should be replaced by "humankind". Where does it end?
| |
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 12:55 PM
|
#117 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: PA
Posts: 1,466
| | |
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 01:38 PM
|
#118 | | Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 7,503
|
There seem to be at least three pronoun issues under discussion here:
gender
singular/plural
general/specific (one vs. s/he)
| |
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 04:54 PM
|
#119 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,558
| Quote: |
Some writers use the generic "she".
| This is especially prevalent in education writing. It used to always interfere with my reading speed, because I have two sons and often stopped to see if a specific individual was being referred to -- my children were always "he"s.
| |
| Reply
| |
11-20-2012, 06:48 PM
|
#120 | | Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 535
| Quote: |
the current use of "they" as a singular to avoid the awkwardness of he/she.
| Not just current, but in the language for a long time--see The Language Log. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/003572.html
Wayne Leman at Better Bibles Blog has posted a substantial list of "singular they" examples from the long history of English-language bible translation, starting with Tyndale in 1526 and continuing up to versions from the past decade. His examples from the 1611 King James Version:
Matt. 18:35: So likewise shall my heauenly Father doe also vnto you, if yee from your hearts forgiue not euery one his brother their trespasses.
Phl. 2:3: Let nothing bee done through strife, or vaine glory, but in lowlinesse of minde let each esteeme other better then themselues.
Numbers 2:34: And the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses: so they pitched by their standards, and so they set forward, every one after their families, according to the house of their fathers.
Numbers 15:12: According to the number that yee shall prepare, so shall yee doe to euery one, according to their number.
2 Kings 14:12: And Iudah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled euery man to their tents.
| |
| Reply
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
