"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."

What... in the name of God...??!

That entire paragraph is ONE FRIGGIN SENTENCE!! >_< I almost wanna rip 
out my own eyeballs! Who the hell wrote this?!

I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.



So... anybody wanna take a guess how much notice I'm supposed to give?

[For bonus points, speculate how much notice you have to give if you've 
worked for more than 6 months but less than 4 years.]

Damn, this is like the riddle of Diophantuss's age!

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiophantussRiddle.html

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.

For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one 
given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you 
can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]

> 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...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:53:53 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one 
>given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you 
>can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]

The rule is: apostrophe "s" if it belongs to the word. Plain "s" if it is a
plural.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:53:53 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>> For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one 
>> given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you 
>> can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]
> 
> The rule is: apostrophe "s" if it belongs to the word. Plain "s" if it is a
> plural.

And if it belongs *and* is plural... apostrophe *after* the S. (But not 
a lot of people know that.)

So it should, in fact, be "one week's notice" and "four weeks' notice" 
respectively. Interesting how they got it right later but messed up at 
the beginning...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:53:53 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:

>>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.
> 
> For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one
> given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you
> can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]

Actually, it's "weeks'" - it's a possessive plural.

>> 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.

Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:00:18 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>And if it belongs *and* is plural... apostrophe *after* the S. (But not 
>a lot of people know that.)

You did know you wee chantie rascal :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> "2.1.1 For the first 6 months
...
> thereafter either party must give
> at least four week's notice if you have been continuously employed for
> up to four years
...
> So... anybody wanna take a guess how much notice I'm supposed to give?
> 
> [For bonus points, speculate how much notice you have to give if you've
> worked for more than 6 months but less than 4 years.]
...

So four weeks' (*) notice should be given for an employment
that has lasted between six months and 4 years.

(*) http://www.grammardoctor.com/archive10.htm#nov03

-- 
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> So it should, in fact, be "one week's notice" and "four weeks' notice" 
> respectively. 

Except the notice doesn't belong to the week. It's "four weeks notice" 
and "one week notice". :-)  At least in my experience.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:

> > So it should, in fact, be "one week's notice" and "four weeks' notice"
> > respectively.

> Except the notice doesn't belong to the week.

Unless it's Mr. Week that's quitting.

> It's "four weeks notice" and "one week notice". :-)  At least in my
experience.

The "'s" (i.e. "of") need not always indicate possession; "a day's work"
doesn't mean the day owns the work. A "day's work" is "work _of_ a day('s
worth)", a "week's notice" is "a notice _of_ a week('s duration)"...

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> The "'s" (i.e. "of") need not always indicate possession; "a day's work"
> doesn't mean the day owns the work. A "day's work" is "work _of_ a day('s
> worth)", a "week's notice" is "a notice _of_ a week('s duration)"...

Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent 
to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of 
work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work"; 
the day possesses the *value* of the work done.

...I think.

I just made myself really confused trying to re-read that, so I'll shut 
up now.

-- 
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

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent 
> to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of 
> work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work"; 
> the day possesses the *value* of the work done.

  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".

  However, I see this "rule" being broken constantly everywhere, so I'm not
at all sure if it really applies, or if it does, when. I have to admit that
for example "a day's work" sounds ok, perhaps even better than "the work of
a day".

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.

  Look who's talking. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> You did know you wee chantie rascal :)

Of course *I* know it - how am I going to award points if I don't know 
the correct answer myself? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   However, I see this "rule" being broken constantly everywhere, so I'm not
> at all sure if it really applies, or if it does, when. I have to admit that
> for example "a day's work" sounds ok, perhaps even better than "the work of
> a day".
> 
>   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.

FWIW, I agree.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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. ;-)

> Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)

Heh! Who wants to be editor for my NG submissions? :-D

Oh, wait... nothing would ever get submitted. :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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. ;)

Thanks for that. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent
>> to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of
>> work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work";
>> the day possesses the *value* of the work done.
>
>  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".

Yeh I was told that too, the reasoning being that only people could own 
things in the strictest sense of possession.  I try to use that most of the 
time but often it just sounds wrong.

What also confused me at an early age was why "its" didn't have an 
apostrophe, as in  "its lid is hot".  In my mind, it was indicating 
possession, like saying "the car's roof is red", why not "it's roof is red" 
(when you're using "it" instead of "the car")?

>  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.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:00:18 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:53:53 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>> For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one  
>>> given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you  
>>> can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]
>>  The rule is: apostrophe "s" if it belongs to the word. Plain "s" if it  
>> is a
>> plural.
>
> And if it belongs *and* is plural... apostrophe *after* the S. (But not  
> a lot of people know that.)
>
> So it should, in fact, be "one week's notice" and "four weeks' notice"  
> respectively. Interesting how they got it right later but messed up at  
> the beginning...

Or as Warp suggests a "notice of one week" and a "notice of four weeks".  
I'm still stuck on a site near me - is it "Weavers Wharf" as advertised,  
"Weaver's Wharf" as the council put it, or possible "Weavers' Wharf" which  
is what I called it?

-- 
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

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> "not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me.  No idea if it's 
> correct or not.

  That would mean a person with two faces... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> "2.1.1 For the first 6 months
> ...
>> thereafter either party must give
>> at least four week's notice if you have been continuously employed for
>> up to four years
> ...
>> So... anybody wanna take a guess how much notice I'm supposed to give?
>>
>> [For bonus points, speculate how much notice you have to give if you've
>> worked for more than 6 months but less than 4 years.]
> ...
> 
> So four weeks' (*) notice should be given for an employment
> that has lasted between six months and 4 years.

Ah. I missed the "up to" part.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> 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."

> So... anybody wanna take a guess how much notice I'm supposed to give?

> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

#macro Find_Weeks_Notice(Years_Employed)

  #declare Weeks_Notice = 1;

  #if (Years_Employed > .5)
    #declare Weeks_Notice = 4;
  #end

  #if (Years_Employed > 4)
    #declare Weeks_Notice = int(Years_Employed)
  #end

  #if (Years_Employed > 12)
    #declare Weeks_Notice = 12;
  #end

  #debug concat("Weeks notice required: ",str(Weeks_Notice))

#end



There.  I'm sure glad *WE* don't express ourselves in a way that others are
likely to find complicated or obscure.  ;-)


Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> 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."

> #macro Find_Weeks_Notice(Years_Employed)
> 
>   #declare Weeks_Notice = 1;
> 
>   #if (Years_Employed > .5)
>     #declare Weeks_Notice = 4;
>   #end
> 
>   #if (Years_Employed > 4)
>     #declare Weeks_Notice = int(Years_Employed)
>   #end
> 
>   #if (Years_Employed > 12)
>     #declare Weeks_Notice = 12;
>   #end
> 
>   #debug concat("Weeks notice required: ",str(Weeks_Notice))
> 
> #end

OMG... That's like... sublime!

In fact, you know what? I think even *normal* people might be able to 
comprehend this code. w00t!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder escribió:
>     #declare Weeks_Notice = int(Years_Employed)

I'm not sure if int is a valid function. Replace with ceil or floor (or 
round?) as appropriate; would make it more explicit.

>   #debug concat("Weeks notice required: ",str(Weeks_Notice))

Better design if the function returns the value it found, instead of 
printing it.

Also, you could have used #switch and #range; but I agree with 
Invisible: the way it's written now is clear even for non-coders...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> OMG... That's like... sublime!

> In fact, you know what? I think even *normal* people might be able to
> comprehend this code. w00t!

My gosh, you're right!  We can't have THAT.  Crunch code to the rescue:

#macro Gen_WN(YE) #declare WN = 1+3*(YE>.5) + (YE>4) * int(YE-4) +( YE>12) *
int(12-YE); #debug concat("WN=",str(WN))#end


Much better.

BG,
MC

Post a reply to this message

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


Tom

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 
>> OMG... That's like... sublime!
> 
>> In fact, you know what? I think even *normal* people might be able to
>> comprehend this code. w00t!
> 
> My gosh, you're right!  We can't have THAT.  Crunch code to the rescue:
> 
> #macro Gen_WN(YE) #declare WN = 1+3*(YE>.5) + (YE>4) * int(YE-4) +( YE>12) *
> int(12-YE); #debug concat("WN=",str(WN))#end

GAH! >_<


find_weeks_notice :: Double -> Integer
find_weeks_notice years_worked
   | years_worked < 0.5 = 1
   | years_worked < 4   = 4
   | otherwise          = 12 `max` floor years_worked

Much better. :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> In fact, you know what? I think even *normal* people might be able to 
> comprehend this code. w00t!

  #define "normal people"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

>> Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)
> 
> Heh! Who wants to be editor for my NG submissions? :-D

You're using Thunderbird, doesn't it have a live spell checking while
writing the message?

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

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.

>   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.

Yeah, agreed. When it starts getting into complicated sentences, it's 
better to use "of", especially when the words are common homophones. It 
prevents the person from thinking you said "as you too's faces", which 
is confusing.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> "not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me.  No idea if it's 
>> correct or not.
> 
>   That would mean a person with two faces... :P

*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.

(As for the its vs it's, yah, it's one of those things you just memorize.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > In fact, you know what? I think even *normal* people might be able to
> > comprehend this code. w00t!
>
>   #define "normal people"
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

"just a normal human being. And you know what stinkers they are."
-Cab Driver from "Harvey"
(as played by Wallace Ford in the film version)

Oh So Pleasant Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> 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.

I remember "the shop window" (no 's) from a book we used at school...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> "not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me.  No idea if it's 
> >> correct or not.
> > 
> >   That would mean a person with two faces... :P

> *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.

  I suppose that being a native speaker you know better. It still sounds
a bit weird to me, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>>> Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)
>> Heh! Who wants to be editor for my NG submissions? :-D
> 
> You're using Thunderbird, doesn't it have a live spell checking while
> writing the message?

Yes - but it uses American English. [Despite my repeated attempts to 
make it do UK English.]

Also, it doesn't know how to spell half the words I want to use...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Yes - but it uses American English. [Despite my repeated attempts to 
> make it do UK English.]

I see a Spelling button on the toolbar. It has an arrow (menu) next to 
it, lets me choose language.

> Also, it doesn't know how to spell half the words I want to use...

Right click "misspelled" word, Add to dictionary.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>> Yes - but it uses American English. [Despite my repeated attempts to 
>> make it do UK English.]
> 
> I see a Spelling button on the toolbar. It has an arrow (menu) next to 
> it, lets me choose language.

Interesting. I get a blank menu.

>> Also, it doesn't know how to spell half the words I want to use...
> 
> Right click "misspelled" word, Add to dictionary.

Still doesn't help me find the correct spelling in the first place. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

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."
> 
> What... in the name of God...??!
> 
> That entire paragraph is ONE FRIGGIN SENTENCE!! >_< I almost wanna rip 
> out my own eyeballs! Who the hell wrote this?!
> 
> 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.

If you want to see monster sentences, try Victor Hugo.

> So... anybody wanna take a guess how much notice I'm supposed to give?
> 
> [For bonus points, speculate how much notice you have to give if you've 
> worked for more than 6 months but less than 4 years.]

It's quite plain:  Four weeks' notice.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

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".

>> [For bonus points, speculate how much notice you have to give if 
>> you've worked for more than 6 months but less than 4 years.]
> 
> It's quite plain:  Four weeks' notice.

Yes. I missed the "up to" part.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 escribió:
>>> Yes - but it uses American English. [Despite my repeated attempts to
>>> make it do UK English.]
>>
>> I see a Spelling button on the toolbar. It has an arrow (menu) next to
>> it, lets me choose language.
> 
> 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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:38:28 +0100, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> 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:

> Darren New escribió:
>> 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