 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:38:28 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, there are situations where it's clearly misused. For example,
>> I have seen "not as scary as you two's faces", which sounds really
>> awkward.
>> I would say "not as scary as the faces of you two" would be much better.
>
>"not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me. No idea if it's
>correct or not.
>
Just to stir it a bit :)
I come from a region where "not as scary as you two's faces" does sound natural.
"Not as scary as the faces of you two" sounds correct but "not as scary as your
two faces" sounds/reads to me as if you were calling someone a hypocrite. As
warp said he has two faces. Just remember that this is coming from a native
speaker who would expect to hear "not as scary as youse two's faces". A bit of
background:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/01/1096527918018.html?from=storyrhs
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>
>>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.
>>
>> Actually, they write "week's" when referring to one week, and "weeks'"
>> when referring to more than one week, and since these are in the
>> possessive, their usage is correct.
>
> Exhibit A: "four week's notice".
Typo.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> "2.1.1 For the first 6 months of continuous employment the period of
> notice to be given in writing by either you of the Company to terminate
> your employment is one week's notice thereafter either party must give
> at least four week's notice if you have been continuously employed for
> up to four years and thereafter one additional week's notice for each
> completed year of continuous service up to a maximum of 12 weeks' notice
> after 12 years' service has been completed."
The way I see it, they forgot about punctuation. Try it this way:
"2.1.1 For the first 6 months of continuous employment, the period of
notice to be given in writing by either you or the Company to terminate
your employment is one week's notice; thereafter, either party must give
at least four weeks' notice if you have been continuously employed for
up to for years and, thereafter, one additional week's notice for each
completed year of continuous service, up to a maximum of 12 weeks'
notice after 12 years' service has been completed."
However, the first part should be "the period of notice to be given...is
one week;" since "one week" is a period of time; "one week's notice" is
not, and redundant. The rest of the instances of "notice" are fine.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:38:31 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> When I was in school they told us that in English "'s" should only be
>>> used with people, otherwise the "of" version should be used. For
>>> example,
>>> you shouldn't say "the house's window" but "the window of the house".
>> As a native speaker of American english, I will say I've never heard
>> of such a rule. Indeed, such a "window of the house" would make me
>> think you're a native French speaker speaking English or something.
Agreed, contractions tend to be the rule for native English speakers.
> I remember "the shop window" (no 's) from a book we used at school...
"Shop window" has been elevated to a specific rather then general case,
you are discussing the window which is used by the shop to display their
wares; despite the fact there may be more then one of them. If, however,
you were refering to a general window above the shop then you would say
'the shop's window was broken'
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Interesting. I get a blank menu.
>
> Tools - > Options -> Composition -> Spelling
>
> And if it is stuck with only the English/US dictionary, get the
> English/British one from
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/browse/type:3
I've downloaded and installed the UK dictionary more times than I can
count. It never seems to make any difference.
[I did eventually manage to download the UK version of Firefox, so it
works correctly. However, the post editor for my blog uses some fancy
JavaScript thing which neatly disables spell checking...]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:53:34 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Except the notice doesn't belong to the week. It's "four weeks notice"
> and "one week notice". At least in my experience.
Oddly, possessiveness is the usage here, but there isn't a possession in
use. But the rules of grammar that I've read say that it's still written
as a possessive singular or plural (depending on the number of weeks
involved).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:13:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> *Sounds* right to me. "Your" can refer to plural, so if it's clear from
> context you're talking to two people, it wouldn't be confusing.
"Youse twos faces."
Depending on what part of the country you're in.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:15:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's "weeks'" - it's a possessive plural.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>>> Hey, I've been meaning to mention, you'd make a good writer.
>>>> Seriously, you use the English language quite well.
>>> Really? Apart from the minor detail that I can't spell? (Indeed, that
>>> guy fron Finland can spell English words better than I can...)
>>
>> Well, apart from "fron" in the above paragraph, I hadn't noticed your
>> inability to spell. Reading your posts here and in your blog, I've
>> been impressed by the quality of writing you turn out.
>
> That's a typing error, not a spelling error. ;-)
Exactly. :-)
>> Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)
>
> Heh! Who wants to be editor for my NG submissions? :-D
Maybe Warp would volunteer <scnr>. Seriously, though, for this type of
writing, who needs an editor? If you occasionally make an error in
spoken speech in a social setting, only a grammar pedant is going to
correct you (and they do exist), but most people aren't going to care as
long as they understand what you mean.
Same applies in this context as well, for the most part.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:02:54 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:46:44 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.
>>
>> Hey, I've been meaning to mention, you'd make a good writer.
>> Seriously, you use the English language quite well.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> He has a lot of practice writing to the newsgroup ;-0
Well, they say that practice makes perfect. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:32:45 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.
>
> Look who's talking. ;)
He's just invoked McKean's law.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
