Pedants' Corner

[Blackpool Jags]

On last night's Crimewatch programme, Kirsty Young encouraged witnesses to come forward with information they may have about "the man in the red striped top". In fact, the footage clearly showed that the man in question was wearing a top with red hoops, not stripes.

 

Tut tut.

[hamiltonjag]

I forgive you Kirsty :wub:

[Jaggernaut]

That technicality should get him off the hook.

 

I never watch the programme, but caught the "reprise" last night for some reason.

 

What a sick society we live in!

[crazy davie]

I forgive you Kirsty :wub:

[Uncle Psychosis]

Sometimes what seems like a triviality can be deadly important. For instance, capitalisation is very important when helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

[Rid Skwerr]

 

Ah, now I see...

 

:lol:

[Blackpool Jags]

One of my office colleagues, who's a dog lover and has about four or five dogs of various breeds already, mentioned this morning that she's buying a 'sausage dog' pup tomorrow. I immediately pointed out to her that there is no such thing as a 'sausage dog', and that the correct name for the creature I assumed she was referring to is in fact a dachshund. The name "dachshund" is of German origin and literally means "badger dog", from Dachs ("badger") and Hund ("dog").

 

Being an alleged dog lover you'd think she would've known better.

[Jaggernaut]

One of my office colleagues, who's a dog lover and has about four or five dogs of various breeds already, mentioned this morning that she's buying a 'sausage dog' pup tomorrow. I immediately pointed out to her that there is no such thing as a 'sausage dog', and that the correct name for the creature I assumed she was referring to is in fact a dachshund. The name "dachshund" is of German origin and literally means "badger dog", from Dachs ("badger") and Hund ("dog").

 

Being an alleged dog lover you'd think she would've known better.

That is truly shocking. I wonder what the authorities would have to say about her ability to look after dogs properly!

 

 

Remember the old Commando comics, in which German soldiers under attack would refer to the enemy as "Schweinhund!"? That always infuriated me, as there were several nationalities fighting against them.

[crazy davie]

One of my office colleagues, who's a dog lover and has about four or five dogs of various breeds already, mentioned this morning that she's buying a 'sausage dog' pup tomorrow. I immediately pointed out to her that there is no such thing as a 'sausage dog', and that the correct name for the creature I assumed she was referring to is in fact a dachshund. The name "dachshund" is of German origin and literally means "badger dog", from Dachs ("badger") and Hund ("dog").

 

Being an alleged dog lover you'd think she would've known better.

Edited March 4, 2011 by crazy davie

[Charlie Endell]

Sometimes what seems like a triviality can be deadly important. For instance, capitalisation is very important when helping your Uncle Jack off a horse.

[Blackpool Jags]

Just been on our intranet to book a room for a training event, and the ebooking form asks: "How many attendees?" Since I'm expecting between 15 and 20 people to attend the event but none of them to be attended (to), I entered 0 in that field.

 

A message was then displayed which told me my booking had failed!

 

No wonder our public services are going down the council gritter.

[Jaggernaut]

Just been on our intranet to book a room for a training event, and the ebooking form asks: "How many attendees?" Since I'm expecting between 15 and 20 people to attend the event but none of them to be attended (to), I entered 0 in that field.

 

A message was then displayed which told me my booking had failed!

 

No wonder our public services are going down the council gritter.

That seems to be one of those words that has crept into the language because nobody has come up with a better alternative. Attendant? (Clearly not) Attender? (Sounds strange.) Attendist? (Sounds like a member of a cult.)

 

One that irks me is "allow for": "If we sign a good striker that will allow for us to win promotion." What it should be is that will allow us to win promotion. The "for" is actually worse than useless, as "allow for" really means to tolerate or excuse.

 

Starting to sound a bit like Sigesige00 here.

[Blackpool Jags]

That seems to be one of those words that has crept into the language because nobody has come up with a better alternative. Attendant? (Clearly not) Attender? (Sounds strange.) Attendist? (Sounds like a member of a cult.)

 

One that irks me is "allow for": "If we sign a good striker that will allow for us to win promotion." What it should be is that will allow us to win promotion. The "for" is actually worse than useless, as "allow for" really means to tolerate or excuse.

 

Starting to sound a bit like Sigesige00 here.

 

No, you're right; there is a misguided drive, in my opinion, to find single words where there isn't a suitable one. Misguided because the term, in this case, "attendee" is semantic nonsense. "Number of staff attending" might've been a far more cumbersome, yet fully apposite alternative.

 

Your example of "allow for", sadly used by many these days, is equally nonsensical as implies permitted leeway where a (perceived) deficiency lies, although this might be less misleading in the case of Thistle.

 

I think sige would be proud of both of us; in fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he already has a Pedants' Corner top - the home one that is.

[twinny]

That seems to be one of those words that has crept into the language because nobody has come up with a better alternative. Attendant? (Clearly not) Attender? (Sounds strange.) Attendist? (Sounds like a member of a cult.)

 

One that irks me is "allow for": "If we sign a good striker that will allow for us to win promotion." What it should be is that will allow us to win promotion. The "for" is actually worse than useless, as "allow for" really means to tolerate or excuse.

 

Starting to sound a bit like Sigesige00 here.

 

To carry on this theme, adding in the word 'what' in places where it is completely unnecessary bothers me. I blame the Sun.

 

A simple example would be, "If we sign a good striker that will allow for us greater competition for places than what we would have had." To me this 'what' seems completely redundant, though it almost fits in that example. When I think of a better example I might report back.

[Blackpool Jags]

To carry on this theme, adding in the word 'what' in places where it is completely unnecessary bothers me. I blame the Sun.A simple example would be, "If we sign a good striker that will allow for us greater competition for places than what we would have had." To me this 'what' seems completely redundant, though it almost fits in that example. When I think of a better example I might report back.

 

Problem is, this probably makes syntactic sense to the larger part of its readership.

 

Worse still: "It's The Sun Wot Won It" is a famous headline that appeared on the front-page of The Sun on Saturday 11 April 1992, and has since become a political catch phrase in the United Kingdom. (Wiki)

[gianlucatoni]

Problem is, this probably makes syntactic sense to the larger part of its readership.

 

Worse still: "It's The Sun Wot Won It" is a famous headline that appeared on the front-page of The Sun on Saturday 11 April 1992, and has since become a political catch phrase in the United Kingdom. (Wiki)

 

 

On the "what/wot" theme one which caused most consternation - from a personal perspective - was the old advertisement for Ronseal varnish.

 

A middle aged mockney with a rather poor crew cut imparted with all seriousness "It does exactly wot it says on the tin".

 

The tin in question holds varnish and does not have the ability to talk ergo cannot say anything. I'd also question whether the varnish in the tin can do the job without some form of human interaction with a brush/roller as without human input it would simply reside in the tin.

[Jaggernaut]

On the "what/wot" theme one which caused most consternation - from a personal perspective - was the old advertisement for Ronseal varnish.

 

A middle aged mockney with a rather poor crew cut imparted with all seriousness "It does exactly wot it says on the tin".

 

The tin in question holds varnish and does not have the ability to talk ergo cannot say anything. I'd also question whether the varnish in the tin can do the job without some form of human interaction with a brush/roller as without human input it would simply reside in the tin.

Ha ha! Now that is brilliantly pedantic.

[gianlucatoni]

Ha ha! Now that is brilliantly pedantic.

 

We aim to please ...

Nota bene: when I say "we" I really mean me, myself and I in the singular!

[Blackpool Jags]

Ha ha! Now that is brilliantly pedantic.

 

I agree entirely. In this age of literary counter-culture it is incumbent upon all of us to raise the bar of pedantry in these situations; er, metaphorically, that is, not literally.

[gianlucatoni]

I was waiting on a half-time refreshments at the catering stall yesterday at the Raith Rovers game when my attention was grabbed by a brightly coloured A4 sheet of paper advertising the fun day today.

 

As I was perusing the items on the sheet I saw that there were to be bloons there today. When I pointed this out to my six year old daughter, she said nothing at all about it.

 

We continued to the front of the queue to be regrettably told that "thurz nay chocklit cosz as in weave ran oot" in reply to my request for either a Twix or a Mars Bar.

 

In a mild state of grammatical paralysis I returned to my seat to watch the half-time penalties - my daughter turned to me and said "they missed out an a and an l in bloons" !

Edited May 8, 2011 by gianlucatoni

[Woodstock Jag]

Is it really "Pedants' corner"? Unless the pedants collectively possess the corner, surely it's just "Pedants corner"?

 

Yours pedantically,

 

WJ

Chief Pedant

[Blackpool Jags]

Is it really "Pedants' corner"? Unless the pedants collectively possess the corner, surely it's just "Pedants corner"?

 

Yours pedantically,

 

WJ

Chief Pedant

 

A good question, and one which I mused over for a day or two before commencing the thread. In the end, and taking into account that being an electronic facility - as opposed to something which may physically be owned or administered by eg a London Borough Council - I arrived at the view that it could be argued that posters would have some sort of communal ownership thereof, and so I duly accorded it the collective possessive apostrophe in question.

 

That, however, was the smaller of my troubles; I was more ill at ease with myself using the word "corner" as the electronic domain within which associated posts are contained could never rationally be argued to accommodate anything resembling a corner in the literal, physical sense, therefore, and at that point, I resolved to entitle the topic as it presently and irrevocably reads in the grey box, in the full realisation that I had now left myself wide open to incalculable levels of much deserved scorn.

 

Yours in hyper-pedantry,

 

BJ (Archpedant-in-chief)

[Woodstock Jag]

A good question, and one which I mused over for a day or two before commencing the thread. In the end, and taking into account that being an electronic facility - as opposed to something which may physically be owned or administered by eg a London Borough Council - I arrived at the view that it could be argued that posters would have some sort of communal ownership thereof, and so I duly accorded it the collective possessive apostrophe in question.

 

That, however, was the smaller of my troubles; I was more ill at ease with myself using the word "corner" as the electronic domain within which associated posts are contained could never rationally be argued to accommodate anything resembling a corner in the literal, physical sense, therefore, and at that point, I resolved to entitle the topic as it presently and irrevocably reads in the grey box, in the full realisation that I had now left myself wide open to incalculable levels of much deserved scorn.

 

Yours in hyper-pedantry,

 

BJ (Archpedant-in-chief)

 

Surely, though, a corner is not itself owned at all, but a fictitious accessory to the incident of the ownership of the lines or planes created by intersection? Its inability to be owned, either conceptually or by strict derivative of that which produces it must lead the Pedant Society to conclude that implied possessive or ownership qualities should not be attributed.

 

As an alternative to "corner", I would venture "created electronic data" and drop the s and apostrophe in the opening word. This would leave simply "Pedant created electronic data" for a thread title: infinitely more accurate and factually more tolerable.

 

Yours in absurdity

 

WJ

Lord Pedant of Jordanhill

[Blackpool Jags]

Surely, though, a corner is not itself owned at all, but a fictitious accessory to the incident of the ownership of the lines or planes created by intersection? Its inability to be owned, either conceptually or by strict derivative of that which produces it must lead the Pedant Society to conclude that implied possessive or ownership qualities should not be attributed.

 

As an alternative to "corner", I would venture "created electronic data" and drop the s and apostrophe in the opening word. This would leave simply "Pedant created electronic data" for a thread title: infinitely more accurate and factually more tolerable.

 

Yours in absurdity

 

WJ

Lord Pedant of Jordanhill

 

Hmmm. Much to ponder there. I agree that primary consideration ought to be given to the question of spatial dimensionality of the figurative "corner". That point having been conceded earlier leaves us to ponder the appropriateness, or otherwise, of dispensing with the extant thread title in favour of the "Pced" (abbrev.) nomenclature, as suggested in your post above.

 

In summation, I fear that to accord the thread a considerably more apposite heading - that being of an electronic inclination, as opposed to one which implies physical dimensionality - may serve as a disincentive to precocious pedants within our number. Thus, and as the originator - if not the actual proprietor (in any literal context) - of the thread, naw.

 

Yours grindingly vexatious (to non-pedants),

 

BJ (Deputy Assistant to the Assistant Deputy Chief Pedant)

[Jaggernaut]

Anybody think this thread is starting to flounder?

 

Can anything be done to shore it up?