The Daily Mail Are Such Liars!
-
Rob Graham wrote:
it wouldn't let Troy sound so intellectual and aristocratic. (translation: stilted and anal).
You're right, as usual. Folks for whom putting up a front is more important than communication are afraid to speak naturally or use colloquialisms. It would make them sound so human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
You're right, as usual. Folks for whom putting up a front is more important than communication are afraid to speak naturally or use colloquialisms. It would make them sound so human.
Carn! 'e can't be that bloomin' thick-'eaded, can 'e? 'e's always speakin' all proper-like!
-
digital man wrote:
Its the only morning paper where the ink will not come off on your hands.
If I had a Daily Mail in my house in the morning my hands are not what I would worry about getting inky.
I hope you realise that hamsters are very creative when it comes to revenge. - Elaine
-
Rob Graham wrote:
it wouldn't let Troy sound so intellectual and aristocratic. (translation: stilted and anal).
You're right, as usual. Folks for whom putting up a front is more important than communication are afraid to speak naturally or use colloquialisms. It would make them sound so human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
You're right, as usual. Folks for whom putting up a front is more important than communication are afraid to speak naturally or use colloquialisms. It would make them sound so human.
Carn! 'e can't be that bloomin' thick-'eaded, can 'e? 'e's always speakin' all proper-like!
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Carn! 'e can't be that bloomin' thick-'eaded, can 'e? 'e's always speakin' all proper-like!
Thank you, Eliza, now go check out the rain in Spain.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Whom? Colloquialism? La-di-bloody-da intellectual, more front than Blackpool. :)
Bob Emmett
-
Speaking of grammatically awkward. "The Daily Mail is such a liar" would be far preferable to folks for whom English is a first language. There are even better constructions but this, at least, has the subject and predicate matching.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Speaking of grammatically awkward. "The Daily Mail is such a liar" would be far preferable to folks for whom English is a first language.
Not when speaking to persons speaking British English. And, for that matter, not when speaking American English properly. There is a reason that our ancestors always said "The US are ..." rather than "The US is ..."
modified on Monday, May 11, 2009 3:09 PM
-
Rob Graham wrote:
it wouldn't let Troy sound so intellectual and aristocratic. (translation: stilted and anal).
You're right, as usual. Folks for whom putting up a front is more important than communication are afraid to speak naturally or use colloquialisms. It would make them sound so human.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Speaking of grammatically awkward. "The Daily Mail is such a liar" would be far preferable to folks for whom English is a first language.
Not when speaking to persons speaking British English. And, for that matter, not when speaking American English properly. There is a reason that our ancestors always said "The US are ..." rather than "The US is ..."
modified on Monday, May 11, 2009 3:09 PM
Ilíon wrote:
Not when speaking to persons speaking British English.
1. The Brits also believe in having singluar poredicates follow singular subjects. 2. The less grammatically awkward phrasing would be "to people," not "to persons." 3. You were not speaking to an audience of Brits. Other than that, I see your point.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ilíon wrote:
Not when speaking to persons speaking British English.
1. The Brits also believe in having singluar poredicates follow singular subjects. 2. The less grammatically awkward phrasing would be "to people," not "to persons." 3. You were not speaking to an audience of Brits. Other than that, I see your point.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
1. The Brits also believe in having singluar poredicates follow singular subjects.
And plurals follow collective subjects. Thus, "the council are ..." and "the Daily Mail are ..." and "the US are ..."
Oakman wrote:
2. The less grammatically awkward phrasing would be "to people," not "to persons."
The plural of 'person' is not 'people,' it is 'persons.' Just because *you* speak (and think) like a child doesn't mean that everyone must.
Oakman wrote:
3. You were not speaking to an audience of Brits.
You would you know? You a child; you've vastly ignorant.
-
Oakman wrote:
1. The Brits also believe in having singluar poredicates follow singular subjects.
And plurals follow collective subjects. Thus, "the council are ..." and "the Daily Mail are ..." and "the US are ..."
Oakman wrote:
2. The less grammatically awkward phrasing would be "to people," not "to persons."
The plural of 'person' is not 'people,' it is 'persons.' Just because *you* speak (and think) like a child doesn't mean that everyone must.
Oakman wrote:
3. You were not speaking to an audience of Brits.
You would you know? You a child; you've vastly ignorant.
Ilíon wrote:
And plurals follow collective subjects. Thus, "the council are ..." and "the Daily Mail are ..." and "the US are ..."
Wrong all three times, but if you were right, then how would you explain your use of "The Daily Mail is" in the body of this thread's OP?
Ilíon wrote:
The plural of 'person' is not 'people,' it is 'persons.' Just because *you* speak (and think) like a child doesn't mean that everyone must.
Getting a little testy, eh? Looks like you're beginning to realise how badly you write.
Ilíon wrote:
You would you know? You a child; you've vastly ignorant.
I know that "You would you know? You a child; you've vastly ignorant" is hilariously bad construction. You must be foaming at the mouth. Take it easy, Troy. Nothing we say here, or do, will solve the world's problems or extend our lives for even a day. :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
1. The Brits also believe in having singluar poredicates follow singular subjects.
And plurals follow collective subjects. Thus, "the council are ..." and "the Daily Mail are ..." and "the US are ..."
Oakman wrote:
2. The less grammatically awkward phrasing would be "to people," not "to persons."
The plural of 'person' is not 'people,' it is 'persons.' Just because *you* speak (and think) like a child doesn't mean that everyone must.
Oakman wrote:
3. You were not speaking to an audience of Brits.
You would you know? You a child; you've vastly ignorant.
Ilíon wrote:
the council are ...
It is not that rigid in British English. The council are debating the 2008/2009 budget. (Plural as the activity of its members.) The council has booked room 141 for the meeting. (Singular as an entity.) If one were to allow 'Daily Wail' to be collective, then the following are acceptable: The Daily Wail are such liars. The Daily Wail is such a lying rag. But the singular is more likely to be used.
Bob Emmett
-
Ilíon wrote:
the council are ...
It is not that rigid in British English. The council are debating the 2008/2009 budget. (Plural as the activity of its members.) The council has booked room 141 for the meeting. (Singular as an entity.) If one were to allow 'Daily Wail' to be collective, then the following are acceptable: The Daily Wail are such liars. The Daily Wail is such a lying rag. But the singular is more likely to be used.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
It is not that rigid in British English. The council are debating the 2008/2009 budget. (Plural as the activity of its members.) The council has booked room 141 for the meeting. (Singular as an entity.)
Of course.
Bob Emmett wrote:
If one were to allow 'Daily Wail' to be collective, then the following are acceptable: The Daily Wail are such liars. The Daily Wail is such a lying rag.
Exactly. It depends upon what one is saying.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Carn! 'e can't be that bloomin' thick-'eaded, can 'e? 'e's always speakin' all proper-like!
Thank you, Eliza, now go check out the rain in Spain.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Thank you, Eliza, now go check out the rain in Spain.
Why bother? I already know where it mainly falls.