FOAK: Keys

Wot? Cane is allergic to books?

 

I did. I thought I was cracking a joke.

Obviously not, so I'll not give up the day job.

 

Cane says...

Are you sure you haven't had them fall out of the lock because it's
worn? You can't trust these modern locks you know - better to use a big
padlock and chain.

<scratches chin in a Jimmy Hill stylee>

--
Lozzo
Triumph Daytona 955i SE (Black with added black bits)
GSF600SW (broked)
'I do not object to people looking at their watches when I am speaking.
But I strongly object when they start shaking them to make certain they
are still going.' William Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett, Oct 1960.

 

Good point as when I turn my bike upside down the keys generally drop
out of that too.

 

Repeat after me:

"Raised intonation cannot be represented in a text-based medium simply
by adding a question mark"

 

Err, can I just ask why you think this is not the case? You quite
clearly took the question mark so to represent, so you are, in fact,
contradicting yourself.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

<fx:stands up>
"My name is Chris and I'm a grammar pedant."
<fx:sits down>

It's because, IMHO, a question mark indicates a question.[1] What Champ
typed wasn't a question.

Is this one of those "if we know what it means then it doesn't matter
if it's wrong" instances?

Anway, just because (I think) I understood what Champ was trying to
achieve by adding the question mark, I still think it's wrong to do so.

[1] Or does it? Maybe now a '?' represents either question or RI. And
if we can tell whether it's a question or not without it, why do we
need it? Discuss.

 

Yes it was. He was quite clearly asking if the OP could perhaps read
the rest of the thread. You could tell, see, because he put a question
mark at the end of the sentence.

It's more one of those "if everyone knows what something means, then
how can it be wrong?" instances.

Well I say that you're wrong to try and apply an arbitrary rule of
_your_own_making.

In fact, the use of a question mark in this way, to indicate that a
statement is intended as a question without reversing the verb/subject
order, has been around for centuries.

<reaches for Complete Works of Shakespeare>

Here we go: As you like it Act V Sc II "Why then, tomorrow I cannot
serve your turn for Rosalind?" Sc IV "You say, if I bring in your
Rosalind, you will bestow her on Orlando here?"

Need I go on?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

The words formed a statement, the question mark confused the issue.
Either the question mark was wrong or the order of the words "you
could" was wrong.

Well, this is ukrm. I thought it was obligatory.

Yeah, but Shakespeare was shit. Everyone knows he couldn't write
proper English.

 

I don't think so. A rhetorical question is still a question, it just
requires no answer (or has an implied answer).

 

You'd better tell the OED and other grammar and dictionary makers
then, as his work forms the basis for many of the rules we comsider
normal.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

You're both 'wrong' according to dictionary definitions.
--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Yeah, right[1].

[1] "and there is no construction in which two positives make a
negative"

 

<fx: waves hands dismissively>[1]
But what do they know?

[1] Credit WUN as I think this is one of his.

 

Probably still in the pot at the last party you went to...

 

It could?

 

Err, I'd very much like you to expand on that, as I believe you are
wrong. A very high proportion of 'new' words and usages that entered
the language between 'middle' and 'modern' English are first
encountered in Shakespeare and it's largely his work that we (the OED
et al.) use as a reference for their 'modern' meaning.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Yes, I know. And it also records when the normally understood usage
was first recorded. Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said " his
work forms the basis for many of the rules we comsider normal." What I
meant was that the first recorded instances of 'normal' usage 'rules'
appear in his work. Mainly because he was so prolific and used current
language (we assume) in what he wrote.

Quite. As I was saying earlier.

My point entirely. So he's the single largest source of reference as
to what we consider 'modern English' as it's understood and recorded
by peeps like your bro. He didn't invent the language, he just
recorded it.

For the meaning of those usages that he first recorded, is what I
meant. You seem to be extrapolating my meaning to encompass the whole
of the English language, which was not what I said or meant.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`