"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode! - Page 82 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

OK, quite a few of you are saying D. But isn't that a wrong comparison? The employee's "position" is being compared with the "supervisor."

Another similar yet simpler example might be the following:

"He is a person with more character than his wife."

vs

"He is a person with more character than that of his wife."

"He has more character than his wife." The first one.

Quote

05-31-2011 , 06:22 AM

#2027

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepenthe

Reason: Edit 2: Oh, and also, the original question does not say "order of his supervisor" as you mistakenly quoted.

Oh, yeah, I tagged it as my own alteration. I wanted to show how easy it was to get rid of that modifier.

Quote

05-31-2011 , 10:47 AM

#2028

nepenthe

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,750

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheInternet

I picked C because I inferred it was what you wanted. D sounds better.

It wasn't. But I'm looking for a good explanation, in purely grammatical terms, why D is correct and C isn't. I have a rough idea but am not sure it's satisfying.

Quote

05-31-2011 , 11:13 AM

#2029

Altheimer

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 238

Quote:

Originally Posted by private joker

Can everyone in the English-speaking world please stop saying "It is what it is!"

Jesus that pisses me off.

"What is, is. What was, was. What will be was, but will be again."

The philosophy of A. Horshack.

Quote

05-31-2011 , 11:58 AM

#2030

RussellinToronto

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,224

Quote:

Originally Posted by nepenthe

You're right about what's wrong with the first of these: it is comparing two unlike things. However, when used in speech it will always work.

As formal written English, neither of these is very good. The "that" in the second example is very vague. What does it refer to? A better revision would be "He has more character than his wife does." And it would always be acceptable to shorten that to: "He has more character than his wife."

Quote

05-31-2011 , 05:31 PM

#2031

nepenthe

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,750

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussellinToronto

You're right about what's wrong with the first of these: it is comparing two unlike things. However, when used in speech it will always work.

The problem is that I was playing a bit of devil's advocate when I said that. I'm actually leaning towards D as the correct answer at the moment.

Quote:

As formal written English, neither of these is very good. The "that" in the second example is very vague. What does it refer to? A better revision would be "He has more character than his wife does." And it would always be acceptable to shorten that to: "He has more character than his wife."

I clearly agree that your last sentence is most concise (although not so much that the term "that" is vague - I think it's pretty clear). Unfortunately the SAT sometimes tests you on marginal situations involving suboptimal sentences which I'm trying to mimic.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:32 PM

#2032

MikeyObviously

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,266

I work on a website and recently had to title a link...and I went with:

"When One Cannot Care for Themselves"

I was told this grammar was "pretty off". Can someone explain what is wrong with the above phrasing? It is just a link...not a sentence or anything...

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:33 PM

#2033

econophile

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 11,319

should be "when one cannot care for himself"

or

"when one cannot care for herself"

ETA: "When one cannot care for oneself" is probably more correct.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:33 PM

#2034

baumer

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 4,061

Why you gotta belittle the f?

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:37 PM

#2035

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Looks fine.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:37 PM

#2036

private joker

Most Definitely

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 25,244

Yeah I hate using "them" or "they" to describe an individual. Say "Oneself" or "Himself" or "Herself."

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:40 PM

#2037

MikeyObviously

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,266

Thank You!

using a gambling forum as a professional resource ITT...

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:41 PM

#2038

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

I prefer When You Can't Care for Yourself.

(Colloquial, but fine).

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:47 PM

#2039

MikeyObviously

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,266

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTheInternet

I prefer When You Can't Care for Yourself.

(Colloquial, but fine).

We discussed this, but the content behind the link is meant for a caretaker (law-wise), not the person who actually can't take care of themselves.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 05:49 PM

#2040

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by private joker

"Himself" or "Herself."

What's the worst of four evils?

Constant, often awkward use of either the overly-formal "one" or the singular "they," the latter of which evokes some passive-aggressive censure (e.g., "when someone is finished with the toilet, they should put the seat down!!!")
Setting yourself up as a potential target of feminist diatribe by defaulting to "him."
Appearing patronizing/apologetic by defaulting to "her."
Sounding like you are talking to two separate people, or a hermaphrodite, or just sounding wishy-washy, by alternating "him" and "her."

Head asplode. English better sort these gender[-neutral] pronouns out.

Last edited by ToTheInternet; 06-06-2011 at 05:56 PM.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 06:09 PM

#2041

Clare Quilty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,710

Quote:

Originally Posted by econophile

ETA: "When one cannot care for oneself" is probably more correct.

I think this is one of those spots where even though this is debatably more correct, it sounds awful so it's no good. I would go with "When a person cannot care for themselves."

Quote

06-06-2011 , 06:27 PM

#2042

MikeyObviously

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,266

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clare Quilty

I think this is one of those spots where even though this is debatably more correct, it sounds awful so it's no good. I would go with "When a person cannot care for themselves."

I like this better, but I don't feel like making a stand on this one...so I've changed it to oneself.

I did make a stand on the FAQ vs FAQs debate...where I said FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions...and that FAQs would be multiple sets of FAQ.

I lost that battle, and our website still uses FAQs to describe one set of questions.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 06:31 PM

#2043

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,667

Why not just make it "When [some word which is actually plural] cannot care for themselves"?

Quote

06-06-2011 , 06:32 PM

#2044

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Persons. When Persons Can't Care for Themselves.

Last edited by ToTheInternet; 06-06-2011 at 06:33 PM. Reason: Nah jk. People.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 06:37 PM

#2045

Clare Quilty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 6,710

In the Event of Exigencies Being Untended to by Oneselves' Own Person

Quote

06-06-2011 , 08:48 PM

#2046

private joker

Most Definitely

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 25,244

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeyObviously

We may have gone over this in the thread before but I sort of like saying "RBIs" in baseball. I know that the plural of "run batted in" is "runs batted in," which is why sportscasters now say "RBI" for the plural, but to me it sounds bad. Once you're making a new term out of it, that term is now its own entity -- "RBI" is a singular term, and I like to think that pluralizing it makes it "RBIs." I know it's technically wrong but it rolls off better.

"After his game-winning RBI in the bottom of the 9th, Pujols has now reached 65 RBIs this season, a record-setting pace." Just sounds better.

Last edited by private joker; 06-06-2011 at 08:49 PM. Reason: I would also accept "ribbies"

Quote

06-06-2011 , 09:17 PM

#2047

ToTheInternet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 13,876

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clare Quilty

In the Event of Exigencies Being Untended to by Oneselves' Own Person

Quote:

Originally Posted by private joker

Quote:

Q. My question refers to the plural use of acronyms and initialisms. As I have always understood it, the acronym or initialism can be pluralized only if the last letter indicates the plural item. So MOU (memorandum/memoranda of understanding) cannot become MOUs, but ICT can become ICTs (information and communication technologies). I run into this problem a lot with the initialism RFP (request for proposals), which people like to pluralize as RFPs to indicate multiple requests. The word proposals is already plural, so it does not make sense to me to add an s to the end of the initialism. What is the correct way to make acronyms or initialisms plural?

A. If you can stop thinking of the spelled-out meaning of the acronym and just treat the acronym itself as a word with its own meaning, you should be able to add that little s without fretting.

Quote

06-06-2011 , 09:50 PM

#2048

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by private joker

The arguments regarding RBIs don't really apply to FAQ. "The FAQ" is generally known to be a singular entity: a list of questions and answers. No one ever says, "oh, that's a faq" to mean something like, "dude, people ask that all the time". The term very clearly refers to the collection of such questions which are placed somewhere such that they are easily available for reference. Naming such a collection "FAQs" displays great ignorance of what FAQ actually means.