[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by arunphilip

... the phrasing of the law would have been influenced by (if not bound by) the government's manual of style.

I don't know about America. In UK, judges who have to rule on what something in an act of parliament really means do not do so on niceties of grammar: they rule on what they consider to have been the intention of parliament. It's not a grammar game.

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It's not a grammar game.

On a lighter note, let us fall back on this clichéd example -KILL HIM NOT LEAVE HIM - an imaginary judgement dictated by an imaginary judge to an inexperienced intern: and say that sometimes, a comma can indeed be powerful enough to decide when to end a man's game, literally.

[Thad E Ginathom]

...In that instance, I think I'd prefer a semicolon!

[samaspire]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

On a lighter note, let us fall back on this clichéd example -KILL HIM NOT LEAVE HIM - an imaginary judgement dictated by an imaginary judge to an inexperienced intern: and say that sometimes, a comma can indeed be powerful enough to decide when to end a man's game, literally.

I have heard this before. But isn't KILL HIM, NOT LEAVE HIM, just wrong English

And judges are known to go by the letter of the law.

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted by samaspire

I have heard this before. But isn't KILL HIM, NOT LEAVE HIM, just wrong English

It appears so, with 'not' having wrongly replaced 'don't'. Hence, it is always preceded/followed by a lot of riders. But with the queen's English, you never know. Someone, at some point in history, may indeed have delivered a judgement in those precise words .

There are two other versions of the example:

1. Spare him not leave him.
2. Hang him not leave him.

Correctness of the sentences notwithstanding, all three have been extensively used in classrooms to drive home the importance of proper punctuation.

And judges are known to go by the letter of the law.

Let me quote an example where spirit will carry the day. Try punctuating this:

A panda walks into a bar eats shoots and leaves.

And when you are done with the poor panda, punctuate this interesting take on gender sensitization:

A woman without her man is nothing.

[samaspire]

Originally Posted by dailydriver

Try punctuating this:

A panda walks into a bar eats shoots and leaves.

And when you are done with the poor panda, punctuate this interesting take on gender sensitization:

A woman without her man is nothing.

A panda walks into a bar; eats shoots and leaves.

Kung fu panda walks into a bar - eats, shoots, and leaves.



A woman; without her, man is nothing.
A woman without her man, is nothing.

(I don't agree with the spirit of the above 2 sentences )

[Guite]

A sign in a London pub, "We do not have wifi, speak to each other".

This is not verbatim what the sign actually said, although I saw a photo of it on the internet. The original may actually have the word "talk" in place of "speak", which might be the more appropriate word in this instance. I just want to gather the opinion of the members here as to whether the opening sentence is correct with respect to the insertion of the word "speak", and not "talk".

[Thad E Ginathom]

... It will do. But talk seems to suggest two-way communication, so would do better. In general usage, one would say "talk to each other."

whether the opening sentence is correct with respect to the insertion of the word "speak", and not "talk".

Whether requires an alternative, eg whether speak or talk is correct. Otherwise use if

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

(grammar Nazi note: yes, this post suffers from a bad attack of verbed nouns)

Any time I see "verbing" in action, I'm reminded of this strip from the inimitable Calvin & Hobbes:

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh! I thought access always was a verb. wait... No: it is not a verb in my 1964 SOED, which for me defines the beginning of time.

So next time a system tells me that I don't have permission to access something, I can know that the reason is... that it is not even a word!

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

144 Amazon microfibre cloths for 3,599. Gross!

I fear this joke fell on deaf ears! And, indeed, I have not heard of anything being sold by the "gross" for a long time. In my childhood, it was commonly used. 1 gross is a dozen dozen: 12*12, 144.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

1 gross is a dozen dozen: 12*12, 144.

Now that, I did not know! I've only been familiar with other usage, such as gross vs. net, gross (gruesome), and gross (the larger picture, as in gross anatomy).

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I fear this joke fell on deaf ears! ....

Had I seen that post of yours I would have certainly scored!
Now, does anyone know what a score is, other than its usage in cricket?!

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Now, does anyone know what a score is, other than its usage in cricket?!

20 is what comes to my mind.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Yes, it is twenty, and I'd forgotten that. Again, it was a common word just a few decades ago.

It is not as if this things were rods, poles and perches --- which were archaic curiosities when I was at school, or, apart from the [horse] racecourse, furlongs!

A baker's dozen, anybody?