Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Grazioso]

Aye, I was (not to labor the point) having a go at being funny.

I know 

[Cato]

I know 

And off-topic, Basil Rathbone was the ultimate Sherlock Holmes!

Although Jeremy Brett comes very close!

[Grazioso]

And off-topic, Basil Rathbone was the ultimate Sherlock Holmes!

Although Jeremy Brett comes very close!

If nothing else, the gaunt Cushing, with his pronounced zygomatic arches, deep-set eyes, and aquiline nose, comes very close to the physical descriptions of the character.

[karlhenning]

I like Basil Rathbone as Holmes. But cannot bear Nigel Bruce as Watson.

Let the flaming begin . . . .

[Cato]

If nothing else, the gaunt Cushing, with his pronounced zygomatic arches, deep-set eyes, and aquiline nose, comes very close to the physical descriptions of the character.

Peter Cushing is indeed another good one, but in my mind Basil Rathbone as Holmes is parallel with Sean Connery as James Bond.  Imprinting might be involved.

And to return to a previous topic:



"Our boss was a penny pincher, until Penny sued him for sexual harassment!"   0:)

[Cato]

I just saw a really doubleplusdumb TV commercial for Mercedes-Benz, wherein a computer-animated car is chained to rocks.  The car then accelerates and the doors are torn off.

A voice then intones something about the new Mercedes having... "less doors."              

[eyeresist]

And what oomphatic evidence!   

(Apologies to any ladies here at GMG, but admiring God's handiwork is a form of praise to the Divine!   0:)   )

So how about apologising to the atheists, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[Grazioso]

I just saw a really doubleplusdumb TV commercial for Mercedes-Benz, wherein a computer-animated car is chained to rocks.  The car then accelerates and the doors are torn off.

A voice then intones something about the new Mercedes having... "less doors."              

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was looking at this:

[karlhenning]

So how about apologising to the atheists, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

But, they cannot possibly expect any credit! ; )

[Cato]

But, they cannot possibly expect any credit! ; )

Amen!   0:)

[The Six]

So what do you do with apostrophes is you're talking about a proper noun that already has a possessive?

I tried the new fries at Wendy's is easy, but if it were to be rearranged, I tried Wendy's' new fries looks odd. Take out the second apostrophe and I could very well be talking about some girl named Wendy, and not the restaurant.

[Opus106]

So what do you do with apostrophes is you're talking about a proper noun that already has a possessive?

I tried the new fries at Wendy's is easy, but if it were to be rearranged, I tried Wendy's' new fries looks odd. Take out the second apostrophe and I could very well be talking about some girl named Wendy, and not the restaurant.

Why do you want to complicate mattes? Just use the first example.

But if you insist on using the second, do as programmers are wont to do and use an escape character!

[Cato]

So what do you do with apostrophes is you're talking about a proper noun that already has a possessive?

I tried the new fries at Wendy's is easy, but if it were to be rearranged, I tried Wendy's' new fries looks odd. Take out the second apostrophe and I could very well be talking about some girl named Wendy, and not the restaurant.

As advised by Opus 106 you could simply not say the second example.

However, if you insisted on the second, just keep it "Wendy's."  The fictional girl running the restaurant would be the one making and temporarily possessing the French fries.

Using "Wendy's" by itself assumes that one knows that "she" owns a restaurant.  e.g. I like to eat at Wendy's (restaurant). 

By placing a food item in the sentence, the word "restaurant" drops out of the understanding.

Interesting: here in Columbus the company is experimenting with new designs for the restaurants, and have built several prototypes for future remodeling and expansion.  They have computerized pop machines from Coca-Cola, allowing one to create drinks not normally available.

[Grazioso]

So what do you do with apostrophes is you're talking about a proper noun that already has a possessive?

I tried the new fries at Wendy's is easy, but if it were to be rearranged, I tried Wendy's' new fries looks odd. Take out the second apostrophe and I could very well be talking about some girl named Wendy, and not the restaurant.

None of my style guides address this. Barring rephrasing, as in your initial example, I would go with "I tried Wendy's new fries." Context should make it clear. Doubling the apostrophe would be confusing and odd. The purpose of writing is to communicate, not to obfuscate.

[The Six]

As advised by Opus 106 you could simply not say the second example.

Oh, of course. I just wanted to know if there was any actual rule for it. I guess there isn't.

Interesting: here in Columbus the company is experimenting with new designs for the restaurants, and have built several prototypes for future remodeling and expansion.  They have computerized pop machines from Coca-Cola, allowing one to create drinks not normally available.

I've seen and tried this an an El Pollo Loco. It's very cool. If you like choosing between Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, and all that you'll love it because it's like that for pretty much every soda in the Coke family. A void in my beverage life has been filled with Raspberry Sprite.

[DavidRoss]

Interesting: here in Columbus the company is experimenting with new designs for the restaurants, and have built several prototypes for future remodeling and expansion.  They have computerized pop machines from Coca-Cola, allowing one to create drinks not normally available.

Hmmm, replicating the soda fountains of our youth, where a dime would get you a delicious chocolate-cherry coke, or a vanilla-strawberry phosphate, or any other bubbly concoction your little heart might desire?  (Minus the ambiance, of course.  Sigh.  I miss the ambiance.)

[Cato]

From Toucan's topic on Berlioz and Elitism in Classical Music, part of a translation of an essay by the composer:

Music is at once a sentiment and a science; it requires from he who cultivates it, interpreter or composer, natural inspiration and knowledge that may be acquired only after long study and profound meditations.

Ouch!   

"...from him who cultivates it..."

This reminds me of a mistake heard in English: e.g. "The teacher says: I will expect an apology from whomever broke the window."

Yes, it sounds - sort of - right, but no.  This is called "attraction."  Because of the missing antecedent, "from" attracts "whomever" into the wrong case.

"Whomever" is an object form and cannot be a subject for "broke."

   "I will expect an apology from the person who broke the window."

[DavidRoss]

From Toucan's topic on Berlioz and Elitism in Classical Music, part of a translation of an essay by the composer:

Ouch!   

"...from him who cultivates it..."

This reminds me of a mistake heard in English: e.g. "The teacher says: I will expect an apology from whomever broke the window."

Yes, it sounds - sort of - right, but no.  This is called "attraction."  Because of the missing antecedent, "from" attracts "whomever" into the wrong case.

"Whomever" is an object form and cannot be a subject for "broke."

   "I will expect an apology from the person who broke the window."

Think again, Cato..."from he who cultivates" is the same as "from whoever broke the window."  In these cases "he" and "whoever" are the subjects of the clause which is the object of the proposition. But I think you're right to simply avoid the issue with plain speech: "expect an apology from whoever broke the window" and "music requires both inspiration and knowledge cultivated by study and thoughtfulness."

[Cato]

Think again, Cato..."from he who cultivates" is the same as "from whoever broke the window."  In these cases "he" and "whoever" are the subjects of the clause which is the object of the proposition. But I think you're right to simply avoid the issue with plain speech: "expect an apology from whoever broke the window" and "music requires both inspiration and knowledge cultivated by study and thoughtfulness."

No, that still means that the antecedent for "who" would be the Nominative "he" and making it the object of "from."  "He" can only be a Subject: where then is its verb?  "Who" is the subject for "cultivates." 

You are probably thinking of "He who" sayings, which can indeed begin a sentence as a replacement for "whoever."  But the phrase should not be used here because of the preposition "from."

On an unrelated topic, not specifically grammatical but musical and linguistic: in my local Catholic Church this morning, we were treated to some very bad music for a new translation of the basic parts of the Mass.

Some liturgical "composer" named "LeBlanc" committed some monstrous crimes against syllabification, including triplets with 2 of the three notes violating the natural stress of the word: plus, the two syllables had long-vowels.  The result was clumsy to say the least!

But wait!   

The worst was a half-note on the "-ed" of a verb!!!   

[Grazioso]

It should be "from he who cultivates it." The nominative form is used because "he" functions as the subject of the clause, regardless of the clause itself being an object of the preposition.