Eats Shoots and Leaves
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
The quickest way to get your head around this is as follows. Whatever the Yanks want to do is wrong. Do the opposite and she'll be right mate.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
For interest (if indeed anyone is so), and it's just one view whereas there are indeed many views (probably more than versions, official or unoffical, of English): The plurals problem[^]
dr lim chin lam:
Then there are the nouns where the singular and the plural forms have slightly or entirely different meanings. For example, folk refers to people in general or people in a community (the folk at Tanjong Rambutan), whereas folks is a more intimate term, referring to members of one’s own family (he reminisced about the old folks at home); and desert is an arid, desolate area of land (there is scant vegetation in the desert), whereas deserts, pronounced “dizzerts”, is what one deserves as reward or punishment (he finally received his just deserts).
I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring. M
-
The quickest way to get your head around this is as follows. Whatever the Yanks want to do is wrong. Do the opposite and she'll be right mate.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
For interest (if indeed anyone is so), and it's just one view whereas there are indeed many views (probably more than versions, official or unoffical, of English): The plurals problem[^]
dr lim chin lam:
Then there are the nouns where the singular and the plural forms have slightly or entirely different meanings. For example, folk refers to people in general or people in a community (the folk at Tanjong Rambutan), whereas folks is a more intimate term, referring to members of one’s own family (he reminisced about the old folks at home); and desert is an arid, desolate area of land (there is scant vegetation in the desert), whereas deserts, pronounced “dizzerts”, is what one deserves as reward or punishment (he finally received his just deserts).
I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring. M
Mike-MadBadger wrote:
I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring.
Olde or archaic English. Just Deserts is archaic at least and in modern English deserts is the plural of desert, that place where Roger lives. Generally speaking if there is an erroneous S at the end of a word or even an expected S missing, it is a Yank thing. For instance Lego is correct, Legos not even a word. Math is the first 4 letters of Mathematics and when shortened is spelt (not spelled) Maths. And lets not even get started on their inconsistent use of French pronounciation in words, places and products.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
Are you referring to the collective nouns rule? If the sentence suggests a group you should use the singular form. If it implies more individuality you should use the plural form. A couple of folk is dancing together. A couple of folks are in their own cars. That's how I was taught English, I am not sure that it has anything to do with being American or British.
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
"Folk" is a collective noun; don't pluralize it -- says the representative from the great state of Arizona.
-
The quickest way to get your head around this is as follows. Whatever the Yanks want to do is wrong. Do the opposite and she'll be right mate.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
And tell the yanks to folk off !
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
-
Mike-MadBadger wrote:
I don't know to what version of English this particular writer is referring.
Olde or archaic English. Just Deserts is archaic at least and in modern English deserts is the plural of desert, that place where Roger lives. Generally speaking if there is an erroneous S at the end of a word or even an expected S missing, it is a Yank thing. For instance Lego is correct, Legos not even a word. Math is the first 4 letters of Mathematics and when shortened is spelt (not spelled) Maths. And lets not even get started on their inconsistent use of French pronounciation in words, places and products.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
"Folk" is a collective noun; don't pluralize it -- says the representative from the great state of Arizona.
-
Are you referring to the collective nouns rule? If the sentence suggests a group you should use the singular form. If it implies more individuality you should use the plural form. A couple of folk is dancing together. A couple of folks are in their own cars. That's how I was taught English, I am not sure that it has anything to do with being American or British.
-
Trivial. You both are totally incapable of understanding or using the concept of genders in a language. :-)
Sent from my BatComputer via HAL 9000 and M5
I'm currently learning French (because I now live there), in that context I agree I am totally incapable of using genders in language :-) Although I would argue that French gender and pronunciation rules are sufficiently intertwined and confused thaat it's not my fault :sigh:
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
1. You should avoid using idiomatic speech in texts that are to be read outside of your idiom. This usage of "folk/s" is idiomatic, so the correction is no better or worse than the original text. 2. You should be as precise as possible, without adding words that do not add meaning, i.e: -- What were these "folks" really? Developers? inventors? Users? Idiots? -- By "a couple of", do you mean "two", "Dave and Arthur", or just developers/inventors/users/idiots? The whole phrase could be replaced by a single word, which would communicate meaning better and to more readers. 3. You should show the written language the same respect that you do a programming language -- written languages are far more sophisticated and harder to use, granted, but that does not mean that using them badly is acceptable. Do you redesign "IF" statements, every time you use one? If not, don't screw with English, either. And note that "clever" use of written language doesn't communicate well; it just shows that the writer is a dick. 4. You never write for yourself -- actually, you can, but it's become a bit more difficult since Geocities went under -- so look at words you have written, think of the poor buggers who will have to read them, and make sure that they're a good match. TBH, if I saw the phrase "a couple of folk/s" in a technical document, which is intended to inform people of how to do technical things that they don't already know how to do, I wouldn't release the document until it had been fixed. The stuff people have to learn, and the hoops they have to jump through to make things work, are difficult enough already, without someone making it harder by writing instructions that do not communicate well to the reader.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
At the risk of being a complete arse, I would say a "couple of people" as "folk" has rather a vernacular ring to it. I would not use that term outside of speech.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Just Deserts is archaic at least
I've definitely said that recently (and heard it recently) so unless archaic means before 2010 I'm not sure I agree :) Whereas I totally agree about Maths and Lego :thumbsup:
Mike-MadBadger wrote:
I've definitely said that recently (and heard it recently) so unless archaic means before 2010 I'm not sure I agree :)
The saying is still in common use, deserts as the meaning deserving of is definitely archaic and not used outside of said saying. Google and Wikipedia back me up.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Mike-MadBadger wrote:
I've definitely said that recently (and heard it recently) so unless archaic means before 2010 I'm not sure I agree :)
The saying is still in common use, deserts as the meaning deserving of is definitely archaic and not used outside of said saying. Google and Wikipedia back me up.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
I hate to be pedantic, but I think you will find the expression is just desserts Of course, if you commute between the Sahara and the Kalahari, then you are quite right - it's just deserts. ;P
Chris C-B wrote:
I hate to be pedantic, but I think you will find the expression is just desserts
Of course, if you commute between the Sahara and the Kalahari, then you are quite right - it's just deserts. ;-PYeah...No, you're wrong it is Just deserts[^]
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Just made a very minor update to a tip and some changes were made by the approver (editor), with which I have no issue at all (in fact am grateful for the time and effort), however I was amused to see quite a few stylistic changes and one spelling change in particular (pluralisation, so you could call it grammar) that is highly dependent on which version of English is native to you (or which version you have studied as a second language). Current English (I refuse to write British English, it's tautological :) ) would suggest strongly the singular - I can't however speak for true nerds masters of the English language, I'd have go dig into some of my English dictionaries and usage guides for that and I don't have the inclination right now. Whereas, I think, North American usage (a language I have taken to calling American) would suggest the plural: ...a couple of folk at... ...a couple of folks at... It doesn't really matter too much to me but it does suggest a real stickler is hiding behind the scenes somewhere :-) A google search of is 'folk' plural or singular[^] would seem to agree that folk without the s can certainly be plural. (Yes I do get I slight peak of annoyance everytime I have to select a language in any MS product - grrrr). M
For something like this you should do ngram searches. British English[^] uses the non-pluralized version almost exclusively; in American English[^] folks has ran away with the lead since 1980.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt