Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
edit the article in the link for errors.
What really confuses me is the dangling modifier thing. WTF?
rather than leaving it out there and possibly being able to modify more than one thing.
Did I see him through a window, wanking?
Or did I see him physically wanking off through the window?
Either way, it was disturbing.
The 29th one is a bit strange because it seems to be correcting the grammar of someone you're quoting and I didn't realise that was standard practise (apart from condescending types who only interview numpties so they can get to type "[sic]". Didn't know the 24th one, and tbh the "correct" answer actually sounds more "wrong" to me. Hmmm.
If it's not your intention to make someone sound stupid, it's common just to tidy up and be true to the spirit of what they said rather than the letter of it (within reason).
I remember the time after a heated council meeting, a councillor I knew came up to me and said: 'I too angry to give you an actual quote - just make it up and make me sound really furious'. That was fun.
I hope he really said "I too angry", like Tarzan or the Hulk or something
and no one would have a coronary as a result. I think if we're talking by-the-book though it's correct.
one of those instances where common usage changes the rules.
you could use plenty of the original and no one would have a coronary, but if we're talking adherence to 'proper' grammar, the answer is unequivocally 'none is'.
it's a contraction of 'not one' so it's singular, but language is so malleable (hi cg!) anyway the fact that there's a debate on correct usage shows that there isn't anything set in stone.
According to Fowler's, it's fine. I'm aware of the etymology, but who cares. Who cares about etymology. You're talking about a word that's existed in its own right within the English language for over 1,000 years.
one hundred is or one hundred are?
If it was with summat else though then plural.
So like, 'one hundred is too many'
But, 'one hundred Wigan fans were at the DW last weekend'
300 is too many. 12 is too many. But it's definitely one hundred Wigan fans were, yeah. Maybe I'm worrying over nothing. I think I was thinking about "There was one hundred", with the verb in front. That doesn't sound very good, doesn't it? But it's ONE hundred, not TWO hundreds or THREE hundreds. Not that you'd say "hundreds" in either of the latter two cases. Hmm.
I'd say "there was one hundred", because I'd undoubtedly be speaking in an informal situation, as already evidenced by the ellipsis, and so I wouldn't really give a crap.
though if I conducted a study I'd in all likelihood find that I switch between were and was on that case.
This proves NOTHING.
and the only other use of it I can think of is in the form of "One hundred somethings", in which case it would be "One hundred somethings are..."
yes to what Verbal said about "one hundred is too many", but the same would go for any other number (I think). E.g. Ninety-nine is too many.
The attribute of hundredness. Describing how many incidents of hundredness are occurring.
finding awful pro copy at least gives me a glimmer of hope
Only lasted a couple of issues.
I would have spotted most of them given a more thorough look, although I must confess inquiry/enquiry and compared to/with would have evaded me.
Because it's not editable text.
It's a fucking mess, though, and rather than "edit" it, I'd called for a major rewrite, much of which can't actually be done without knowing the background to the story and having access to the research. E.g. even my best rewrite of the lead para. calls for clarification on certain facts:
In its largest investment for years [vague], the Town of Croydon [Council?] has spent [tense? will spend?] £1.5m on leisure facilities and improvements to the Market [vague/unknown?].
in that I just wanted to rewrite the whole bloody thing. It's like when I was checking a Russian guy's dissertation for him and pretty much EVERY sentence contained at least two mistakes. You just get to the point where you think "ok, do I change that and that so the sentence is technically correct (but still rubbish), or do I just scrap it entirely and write the whole paragraph again?".
for an old flatmate. he was on a sports journalism course, but his grammar and syntax were questionable.
he was/is in that place between stupid and smart, in the sense that he made mistakes but was too proud and stubborn to admit to it and let me help.