While we’re at it, in the thread title there’s no need for the ‘s after Demonstone. It should read, “Demonstone and Flaubert’s…” because they are both in possession of the one thing, in this instance, English grammar for Demonlanders 101.

And at the risk of being even more pedantic (but hey, where else to be so if not this thread), note the word ‘grammar’ begins with a lowercase ‘g’ since this isn’t a proper noun. If you were to have *titled it, “… English Grammar…” then the use of a capital ‘G’ is correct. 
 

* IMO, this is hands down the most annoying error: the use of the word “entitled” in place of “titled”. It’s so common that I fear it will one day be acceptable for use. 

Unrelated (except totally related) I’m proud to say that I once picked up a @Demonstoneerror. Alas, it was in a PM, so y’all are just gonna hafta take my word for it. 😉

PS: Soz NC (the OP) for being so nit-picky. 🥰 

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by WalkingCivilWar

23 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Does my memory serve me correctly, that the first line is a quote of Sir Humphrey from "Yes Minister"?

I've recently re-read all the "Yes Minister/Prime Minister" scripts and, although it sounds very much like something Sir Humphrey might say, the saying has been around for a lot longer than that.  I can't take any credit for it.

A rose by any other form is determined by its context and generally not by the rules of structure. 

If you don't comprehend, because grammar or spelling errors, then ask. Usually the meaning can be figured out.

The trivial/pedantic need for exactness demean the other, virtue signal yourself, and avoid the substance of the communication. 

The limits you place on language cause a deminishing of your experiences. 

Once read a book without any grammar, a Burroughs I think. I assume writing can also be in a form of cubism, Dada, surrealism, and many other out on the edge approaches. 

Let's not all sit up straight, eyes forward, have no free thinking and believe those benefiting from existing rules are superiors.

They are all lying to you.

Express no matter what level each is on.

Writing is for all, not just the top end of intelligentsia. 

1 minute ago, kev martin said:

A rose by any other form is determined by its context and generally not by the rules of structure. 

If you don't comprehend, because grammar or spelling errors, then ask. Usually the meaning can be figured out.

The trivial/pedantic need for exactness demean the other, virtue signal yourself, and avoid the substance of the communication. 

The limits you place on language cause a deminishing of your experiences. 

Once read a book without any grammar, a Burroughs I think. I assume writing can also be in a form of cubism, Dada, surrealism, and many other out on the edge approaches. 

Let's not all sit up straight, eyes forward, have no free thinking and believe those benefiting from existing rules are superiors.

They are all lying to you.

Express no matter what level each is on.

Writing is for all, not just the top end of intelligentsia. 

Made a few errors in your time, huh Kev?

😁

4 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Made a few errors in your time, huh Kev?

😁

Yep

Though was never too interested, never learnt to change, life is too short.

Loved moving on to the next project.

Hate repetition, love the new. 

Attaining perfection bored me. 

Hope the MFC players repeat until they get it right.

Me, I am enjoying being average, though curious and thoroughly amused

 

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by kev martin

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

All forms of possession require the use of an apostrophe, whether singular or plural.

However, if the word ends in the letter  "s", whether singular or plural, just use the apostrophe.

Only living things can have possession.

For example, the legs of a table ... the table's legs WRONG! Not a living thing.

For another example, leaves on a tree ... the tree's leaves CORRECT! It is a living thing.

It is easier with people. For example: John's footy is muddy. (Good). Amos' hot meat pie. (Good) Amos's hot meat pie. (Wrong)

 

 

 

 

Only living things have possession..? What about my late fathers estate? He aint living but has possessions.

And if a table is made out of a tree why not possess legs.

I have a feeling that this post may lead to weighing ducks and witches

26 minutes ago, kev martin said:

A rose by any other form is determined by its context and generally not by the rules of structure. 

If you don't comprehend, because grammar or spelling errors, then ask. Usually the meaning can be figured out.

The trivial/pedantic need for exactness demean the other, virtue signal yourself, and avoid the substance of the communication. 

The limits you place on language cause a deminishing of your experiences. 

Once read a book without any grammar, a Burroughs I think. I assume writing can also be in a form of cubism, Dada, surrealism, and many other out on the edge approaches. 

Let's not all sit up straight, eyes forward, have no free thinking and believe those benefiting from existing rules are superiors.

They are all lying to you.

Express no matter what level each is on.

Writing is for all, not just the top end of intelligentsia. 

Exactly. 

I think the same should apply to football.

Petracca will kick 10 every week, as the goal umpire will surely figure out that he was aiming for a goal, and award said goal regardless of it sailing out of bounds.

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Common idiom and usage allows this; oral usage retains the meaning quite clearly. Possibly six of one and half a dozen of the other on this call. Outside of such preferences, there are those to whom possession could be sacrosanct and these people will strongly disagree. Their preferences would most likely be to state from the example: '..the legs of the table...' highlighting in one fell swoop the emphasis of the subject and the whence of the subject matter and perhaps its purpose. 

 

I understand that some people would stongly disagree, but a blanket declaration that it's wrong for non-living things to have possession is just ... wrong, in oral or written English, in common usage or formal. It serms to be a style guide thing in a particular circle.

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by Demonised
Sense

6 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Exactly. 

I think the same should apply to football.

Petracca will kick 10 every week, as the goal umpire will surely figure out that he was aiming for a goal, and award said goal regardless of it sailing out of bounds.

The opposition may also kick a few for us, but certainly no equalisation. 

Could we have, no winners, and we go for the joy of elitism, excellence and the higher callings of human nature. 

 

In reality, it's all or nothing, winner take all and often to the detriment of life and the joy of the masses.

Subjugation, hierarchy, the intolerable way for those without the benefits of opportunity.

The elites continue to get the umpire to call it a goal, regardless of the outcome, just as you surmise. 

1 hour ago, kev martin said:

The opposition may also kick a few for us, but certainly no equalisation. 

Could we have, no winners, and we go for the joy of elitism, excellence and the higher callings of human nature. 

 

In reality, it's all or nothing, winner take all and often to the detriment of life and the joy of the masses.

Subjugation, hierarchy, the intolerable way for those without the benefits of opportunity.

The elites continue to get the umpire to call it a goal, regardless of the outcome, just as you surmise. 

@Demonstone

@Colin B. Flaubert

Need assistance with the above salad please.

I think Kev means Petracca is elite or something.

 

I liked the world more when we could complain about the spelling and grammar of others while ignoring our own mistajes.

 

 

I think he's trying to suggest that your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Either that, or his hovercraft is full of eels.

Why is this a topic of discussion in the world of Aussie footy and the mangling of our language by commentators, coaches, players, umpires, supporters and administrators?

We all know what is meant no matter what syntactible and idiomatic usage errors they make. It is, after all, our great game and we can describe it however we want so long a we kick sausage rolls and lemon skins.

18 minutes ago, tiers said:

Why is this a topic of discussion in the world of Aussie footy and the mangling of our language by commentators, coaches, players, umpires, supporters and administrators?

We all know what is meant no matter what syntactible and idiomatic usage errors they make. It is, after all, our great game and we can describe it however we want so long a we kick sausage rolls and lemon skins.

Haha Don’t be such a killjoy. It’s just  bit of fun; and it has its own separate topic so as not to infect the “real” footy topics. You know you don’t have to open this topic, don’t you?

57 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Need assistance with the above salad please.

I think Kev means Petracca is elite or something.

Talking about the rule makers and enforcers. 

Rigidity leads to control in order to maintain existing powers.

Each persons expression is a valuable insight into self and perceptions, and it is not dependent on rules.

(Stuck on structure, and unable to decipher meaning of a jumbled expression)

16 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Talking about the rule makers and enforcers. 

Rigidity leads to control in order to maintain existing powers.

Each persons expression is a valuable insight into self and perceptions, and it is not dependent on rules.

(Stuck on structure, and unable to decipher meaning of a jumbled expression)

 

In Bungaree there is a sign for "???? " Potatoe Farm. How can you farm potatoes and not be able to spell it.

Redemption is nearby as there is a farm gate where potatoes are $5 for 5 kilos (kilograms).

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by Cyclops

@faultydet

Noticed that Picasso may have started his cubism by putting straight lines over one of his lovers photographs. 

Taking very realistic and causing salad.

You can see the expression of pain, a reaction to war and the fools and their tools/rules leading us. 

Writing can do the same, a reaction to the inequality caused by structures in this modern world, with a salad soup of words pointing at a revelation, revolution and freedom of expression. A rejection to others telling me how. A cry against the system. Nonsensical,  though with feeling and an underlining expression.  

Can you pick the gist, through the unclear, the gaps and vagueness?

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by kev martin

1 minute ago, kev martin said:

@faultydet

Noticed that Picasso may have started his cubism by putting straight lines over one of his lovers photographs. 

Taking very realistic and causing salad.

You can see the expression of pain, a modern reaction to war. 

Writing can do the same, a reaction to the inequality caused by structures in this modern world, with a salad soup of words pointing at a revelation, revolution and freedom of expression. A rejection to others telling me how.. 

Can you pick the gist, through the unclear, the gaps and vagueness.  

I'd like to have a beer, oops wine with you Kev. You sound like an interesting character, although I do picture you wearing a cravat. Or maybe a Fedora.

I'll purchase a second bottle for an interpreter.

And i have ZERO idea of any "gist" in Picassos' work. I just thought he was bent when he painted it.

 

5 hours ago, layzie said:

Why do so many people spell the word quiet 'quite'? It happens so often in text messages. Is it laziness? Idioticness? They are two completely different words!

Eg. "Yeah I noticed things have been quite between the two of you" 

"You were awfully quite in that last quarter!" 

I are not quiet shore why they do this, but if yew agree I will keep quite about it.

On 7/25/2022 at 12:22 PM, Rab D Nesbitt said:

Learnings 🤦🏻‍♂️

Heh, hang on, that's a word like philosofiser.

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by dworship

4 hours ago, kev martin said:

A rose by any other form is determined by its context and generally not by the rules of structure. 

If you don't comprehend, because grammar or spelling errors, then ask. Usually the meaning can be figured out.

The trivial/pedantic need for exactness demean the other, virtue signal yourself, and avoid the substance of the communication. 

The limits you place on language cause a deminishing of your experiences. 

Once read a book without any grammar, a Burroughs I think. I assume writing can also be in a form of cubism, Dada, surrealism, and many other out on the edge approaches. 

Let's not all sit up straight, eyes forward, have no free thinking and believe those benefiting from existing rules are superiors.

They are all lying to you.

Express no matter what level each is on.

Writing is for all, not just the top end of intelligentsia. 

Well that was 60secs of my life wasted.

But to put stuff in too contest, i carnt tink of any udder footy sight were dis dizcusion wood garner sew mutch coment.

2 hours ago, Demonstone said:

I think he's trying to suggest that your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Either that, or his hovercraft is full of eels.

Don't do that! People talk of head noise and what I had reading that was 2 half coconuts banging together.

9 minutes ago, dworship said:

Don't do that! People talk of head noise and what I had reading that was 2 half coconuts banging together.

Can’t you afford a 🐴 🐎 horse?

3 hours ago, faultydet said:

@Demonstone

@Colin B. Flaubert

Need assistance with the above salad please.

I think Kev means Petracca is elite or something.

 

I liked the world more when we could complain about the spelling and grammar of others while ignoring our own mistajes.

 

 

That's almost poetic.

I believe @Bitter but optimistic has a background in literature and textual analysis. He might be able to help you out.

Truth be told, I'm in no position to s***can anyone's English. Living in the Japans as long as I have and having spoken my non-native language the majority of the time for the last 7 years, I'm begining to slip on the English language front.

 

Edited July 27, 20223 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

If you're so keen to tell us what it isn't, then how about telling us what it am.