Cato's Grammar Grumble

[Karl Henning]

NOT LIKE!

[Cato]

Not a grumble but a question - how to handle capital letters in a title. I want to leave all connectives and prepositions lower case, but a longish, multisyllabic preposition looks downright weird without the big letter thingy at its front end. What say the braintrust?

There are different rules on prepositions. Some will say that the short ones should be lower case and the longer ones upper case (4 letters or less lower case, 5 letters or more upper case). Others will tell you that all preopostions are lower case (jsut an older rule I think). Of course, if it is the first or last word, it will be capitalized.

Examples:
Much Ado About Nothing
As You Like It

Yes, Mc UKRNeal has explained things nicely: if you follow the purists' method 100% of the time, then you end up with:

Much Ado about Nothing
As You like It

And yes, that looks very odd!

I'd like to lament the loss of the once-proud adverb. I saw it coming; why add that cumbersome ly to words when you can leave them out and get the point across the same way? Adjectives have replaced adverbs, and soon enough nouns will replace adjectives. (How many times have you seen a sentence like "They're a class organization" recently?)

First the rhinoceros, now this. I will never forget.

A class organization must have a rather rigid hierarchy of some sort!   

And yes again!  I tilt at the windmill of the vanishing adverb every day in my Latin classes.  Its tabescence shows the slacker attitude toward all sorts of things these days!

[Karl Henning]

As You like It

No, no, because that's a verb not a preposition! : )

[Cato]

No, no, because that's a verb not a preposition! : )

Right!  Doing three things at once has its hazards!       I suppose I just looked at "like it" and, because the context was prepositions, ran with that!

Right now I have a diagramming project with my Latin students: the hope is that they will have a better grasp of things in both English and Latin: adverbs and prepositions are a problem for my students.

[Cato]

The ubiquitous "I" as an object came up last hour in my Latin II class.

"If the soldiers capture either Domitia or I in this house, they will kill us."  Thus my student's translation, despite the word for "me" in Latin being, amazingly, "me."

When I asked why he changed the correct word "me" to the incorrect "I," he responded chillingly: "I don't know.  I guess it sounded right."   

[Karl Henning]

Guess again, punkin-haid!

[Cato]

Okay, so today I receive an e-mail around noon from diocesan bureaucrats (i.e. morons), who claim that I have not turned in a "Non-Spousal Insurance Employment Form."

If I do not turn it in, my insurance "will be adjusted to reflect the change in insurance status."  I must return the form by Monday at 8:00 A.M.

Today is Friday!!!

First, I have never seen the form.  Second, I am not sure what the title means: "Non-Spousal" would indicate that it deals with people other than a spouse, e.g. children, grandparents, etc.  Why should I turn in any such form, since I need insurance only for my wife.  Third, what is "Insurance Employment" ?  Employment in an insurance company?

So my first impulse is to ignore it as not applicable, since it is a "non-spousal" form.  But I have a bad feeling, because I remember that...

...we are dealing with morons!   

So I call them, and of course, being morons, they do not know how to answer the phone.  So I attempt to leave a message, but since we are dealing with morons, the amount of time for a message is under 5 seconds!!!  A voice comes on and says: "You have exceeded the time allowed for a message."

On the other hand, they could be deviously intelligent!      No messages, no work!  But being bureaucrats and morons, they really do not work anyway.

So I send an e-mail and a fax, asking about the purpose of the form and reminding them that their telephone system does not work.

At 2:00 I receive a reply: the "Non-Spousal Insurance Employment Form" is in fact for spouses!!!      If your wife is employed, then the diocese wants to know why they are partially paying for her health insurance, rather than her employer.  If she has no insurance, you need to attest - complete with a seal from a notary public - that she has no insurance!

I am outraged that suddenly I am being told about a form that is A. grossly misnamed, and B. needs to be in their office on Monday morning!!!

I: I don't understand: if this form deals with my spouse's employment, why is it called a "Non-Spousal Insurance Employment" form?
Moron Bureaucrat: Well, we need to know if your wife is employed or not.
I: Yes, I know.  Let me pose the question differently: "Non-Spousal" means the form has nothing to do with my wife.
Moron Bureaucrat: But it does.  It's the form we use to find out if your wife could get insurance from her employer.

Welcome    0:)   to Cloud KafkaLand!!!    0:)   

I: No, it does not.  "Non" means it has nothing to do with one's spouse! 
Moron Bureaucrat: Well, you're just not understanding.  If your spouse is not employed, then you need to turn in the form.
I: No, I understand that your form is misnamed.  What you mean is: "Spousal Non-Employment Form."  The word "insurance" is not really necessary.
Moron Bureaucrat: Well, it's the same thing.

I (silently in my mind): You think that because you're a moron bureaucrat!!!

So, of course I scramble for 45 minutes to find a notary and to mail the form, which I also fax as a back-up plan.

And of course these bureaucrats "earn" more than any of the diocesan teachers!

Our moronocracy becomes ever more unbearable and terrifying!   

[Karl Henning]

'At's the grandmama of all grumbles!

[kishnevi]

The ubiquitous "I" as an object came up last hour in my Latin II class.

"If the soldiers capture either Domitia or I in this house, they will kill us."  Thus my student's translation, despite the word for "me" in Latin being, amazingly, "me."

When I asked why he changed the correct word "me" to the incorrect "I," he responded chillingly: "I don't know.  I guess it sounded right."   

Almost everthing I actually know about English grammar I learned from my high school German classes.  (Sorry, Latin was not available.)   I did not learn it from English classes at any time, or more correctly, it never took.  I needed to see the principles in action in another language, and a different context, before I could actually understand them.    so hopefully your student will eventually grasp that what goes for Latin goes for English as well.

And it could have been worse.  He could have translated the last part as "they will kill we."

[Cato]

Almost everything I actually know about English grammar I learned from my high school German classes.  (Sorry, Latin was not available.)   I did not learn it from English classes at any time, or more correctly, it never took.  I needed to see the principles in action in another language, and a different context, before I could actually understand them.    so hopefully your student will eventually grasp that what goes for Latin goes for English as well.

And it could have been worse.  He could have translated the last part as "they will kill we."

I have also taught German and Ancient Greek in my career, and you are quite right.  Many of my former students have told me the same thing: their English classes just did not get the points across, but for some reason in my German class things became clearer.  The comparison and contrast with the foreign language helped them greatly.

[chasmaniac]

I have also taught German and Ancient Greek in my career, and you are quite right.  Many of my former students have told me the same thing: their English classes just did not get the points across, but for some reason in my German class things became clearer.  The comparison and contrast with the foreign language helped them greatly.

Being Canadian, it was French did this for me. Studying Old English though taught me vastitudes about my own language.

[mc ukrneal]

If we want to continue this discussion, probably best here. Some background:

aluminium

Probably my least liked work in the English language. It just sounds grating to my ears (probably because you will never hear it in the US). I prefer aluminum. Interestingly, it appears that its first use was indeed aluminum, but was changed (according to Wiki) because it did not sound classical enough! You can't make up stuff like this! 

But don't you find that in 'aluminum', the stresses are too plodding and heavy-handed?:
al-oo-min-um, as in: 'I dig the mud. Not at all like the metal, with is soft and light, but better suited for something dull and boring like lead.

Now, aluminium, by contrast, ripples itself into the air halfway through:
al-you-min-i-um. Which has a sort of quicksilverish character that suggests a bird flutteringly taking flight, or some such - much more like the metal itself.


I am not convinced, however, that it would be a good material for making stockings from. Neither would tin be adequate. I wonder whether the Hanover Band are aware of the stockingistical problems they're causing Karl, at this festive season.

That's not how we colonials pronounce it. Rather it's  a loo muh num

Sarge

IUPAC prefers the use of aluminium in its internal publications
'Nuff said!

Their copy of periodic table lists it as an alternative spelling in a footnote. (http://old.iupac.org/reports/periodic_table/index.html)

Exactly. According to wiki..."The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted aluminium as the standard international name for the element in 1990 but, three years later, recognized aluminum as an acceptable variant. Hence their periodic table includes both. IUPAC prefers the use of aluminium in its internal publications, although nearly as many IUPAC publications use the spelling aluminum."

See. already the use of aluminium is suspect, because another detested word, variant, is being used here as if to slight aluminum. Variant doesn't sound as bad as aluminum, it just irratates, because this is the wrong word choice (alternative would be much better here). And while we are on the subject, most detested phrase is 'at the weekend'. This sounds so wrong for so many reasons. I don't want you to think I am being prejudiced against British English, it drives me nuts when Americans leave off words - for example, "I will come with." It's I will come with you! Bloody lazy Americans!!   (Sorry to rant, and in the wrong thread too, but I had to let it out!) (I guess I will repost in the grammar thread, where continued dialog would be more appropriate)

Oh, and while I never say it that way, I do enjoy the British pronunciation of renaissance (with stress on second syllable instead of the first). I could never say it myself that way, but I enjoy hearing it from others.

And in response to Elgarian, I would say it is the opposite way around. Aluminium takes forever to roll off the tongue. In contrast, aluminum doesn't break things up. But I must admit, I've never heard a British speaker say aluminum, and if they say it the way he wrote (and not Sarge's correction), then I'm not sure I'd like aluminum either.

Anyway, this seemed to the more appropriate thread to continue the discussion...

[Opus106]

Oh, just to be clear, I misread North Star's post -- I thought he said the 'other' word was being used in their internal publications, and I was slightly taken aback by that. (Why would an established scientific organisation use incorrect terminology? ) I'll bet that the publications which use 'aluminum' are printed in the U.S.

[North Star]

Oh, just to be clear, I misread North Star's post -- I thought he said the 'other' word was being used in their internal publications, and I was slightly taken aback by that. (Why would an established scientific organisation use incorrect terminology? ) I'll bet that the publications which use 'aluminum' are printed in the U.S.

From Wikipedia:
Most countries use the spelling aluminium. In the United States, the spelling aluminum predominates.[13][59] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary prefers aluminum, whereas the Australian Macquarie Dictionary prefers aluminium. In 1926, the American Chemical Society officially decided to use aluminum in its publications; American dictionaries typically label the spelling aluminium as a British variant.

[Elgarian]

Just spotted this, but I'd already responded over in the other thread, so I'll just copy my post here:

I had mentioned the pronunciation 'al-oo-min-um'

That's not how we colonials pronounce it. Rather it's  a loo muh num

Sarge

I grant you the 'muh' instead of my 'min', Sarge, and your version is much better than mine in terms of the sound of each syllable, but I was more concerned with where the stresses fall - di dah di dah. Perhaps you think I've overstressed the stress on the last syllable? Still, I'd say the stress there is implied by the way the word scans, even if it's underemphasised in practice.

My chief spoken example of this (I mean, the one in my mind as I work through this knotty philosopho-poetico-linguistical problem) comes from Scotty in Star Trek 4, though there he's dealing with 'transparent aluminum' - which I suppose is a different animal, and it could be argued that my experience in the field isn't wide-ranging enough. I propose to make further study of it at the weekend.

[Elgarian]

And in response to Elgarian, I would say it is the opposite way around. Aluminium takes forever to roll off the tongue. In contrast, aluminum doesn't break things up.

Well, it takes forever to roll off the tongue only in the same way as it takes a brook to bubble its way lightly over rocks, or for a sparrow to flit between branches. But a-loo-mi-num just drops like a stone (or never gets off the ground in the first place).

Let's consider how Wordsworth would have tackled it. 'I wandered lonely, a lump of aluminum ...' just doesn't work, does it? It sounds like walking in lead boots. Contrast with the ripplingly expressive 'I wandered lonely, like aluminium ...'

Need I say more?

[mc ukrneal]

Just spotted this, but I'd already responded over in the other thread, so I'll just copy my post here:

I had mentioned the pronunciation 'al-oo-min-um'
I grant you the 'muh' instead of my 'min', Sarge, and your version is much better than mine in terms of the sound of each syllable, but I was more concerned with where the stresses fall - di dah di dah. Perhaps you think I've overstressed the stress on the last syllable? Still, I'd say the stress there is implied by the way the word scans, even if it's underemphasised in practice.

My chief spoken example of this (I mean, the one in my mind as I work through this knotty philosopho-poetico-linguistical problem) comes from Scotty in Star Trek 4, though there he's dealing with 'transparent aluminum' - which I suppose is a different animal, and it could be argued that my experience in the field isn't wide-ranging enough. I propose to make further study of it at the weekend.

Errr, Scotty is your example? A Scot trying to speak British English using an American pronunciation in a movie? You know, I'm in a good mood after reading this!

And that weekend thing - a low blow, a low blow!   It's all wrong I tell you.   I ate at Harrod's this weekend. Really, when? I ate at Harrod's at the weekend. Awful...

[Opus106]

"At the weekend" is relativistic speech.

[Elgarian]

Errr, Scotty is your example? A Scot trying to speak British English using an American pronunciation in a movie?

Well, I knew you were basically on a hiding to nothing over this issue, so I thought I'd give you an easy target so you could think you'd shot me down, and therefore not feel so bad.

[Elgarian]

"At the weekend" is relativistic speech.

You mean, people only say it when travelling at speeds close to the speed of light?