ASF spelling and grammar lessons

[2020hindsight]

hey rob
I rang the Uni of Sydney English Dept, Faculty of Arts
finally put through to some professor lady -
asked her about that Colgate sentence,

she said that she used Macleans !
and if I wanted to find out about Colgate I should google it ?

 

[anne]

Joe is right - it is people's literacy skills!

The easiest way to work it out is to to spell the sentence out in long version and and if the "core" word is expressed as a plural i.e. has an additional "s" at the end, you whack in the apostrophe after the "s"; if the core word doesn't have an additional "s" at the end , you whack in an apostrphe plus an "s".

people's literacy skills spells out to mean the litercy skills of people - no "s" in core work ( even though it is a plural in the literal sense!) so therefore the answer is people's literacy skills .

If we were talking about rabbits' literacy skills, spelt out, that is the literacy skills of rabbits - note the additional "s" so therefore the answer is rabbits plus apostrophe i.e. rabbits' literacy skills

Of couse if we were talking about the grass's literacy skills, spelt out, the core word is grass - and even though grass ends with "s" the "s" is not an additional letter but is part of the core word so therefore the answer is core word plus apostrophe plus "s" i.e. grass's literacy skills!

I taught effective business writing for 17 years; soon after starting my business, I realised I had to develop another workshop teaching professionals how to avoid common grammatical and punctuation errors!

I got so sick of teaching this stuff that it was a great incentive for me to get really good at the stock market so that I never had to teach another writing workshop again!

Funnily enough, I am the worst poster on forums because I can't stand to read the drivel I write and I am a terrible typist - so my posts contain more typos and writing errors than anybody's else's posts - and I don't care!

It is unprofessional though - and I probably do come across as quite demented! But I still don't care! The beautiful thing about investing in the stock market full-time for me is that I don't have to use a single word to succeed!

Cheers Anne

 

[anne]

this is funny - I cannot handle the forum layout of ASF! it is totally illogical for me. It always takes me to the first post of the thread rather than the last post.

it turns out that previous post I made was in response to something someone has psoted on the first page of this thread , eons ago, not reaslising that 16 additional pages of posts have occurred since!

Hope everyone appreciates my apostrophe refresher lesson!

Cheers Anne

 

[2020hindsight]

1. Bush, Blair and Howard agreeing to war in Iraq did not make it "right".
2. How is the original wording in the Colgate advertisement grammatically wrong?
3. It is certainly wrong to say "More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust" because bulldust is not manure (and horticulturists is the collective term for the profession).
4. But if you meant "bulldust" to be construed as manure, the sentence is good.
5. Grammar does not exist in isolation of "meaning".
6. "Will you vote for Howard or Rudd?"
This has the same grammatical connotation as the original Colgate advertisement, so we don't repeat the question, do we.
7. "More footballers wear Nike than any other boot."
Seems ok?
...........................
etc as below

since you went to the trouble to advance the argument ( oops - make that discussion )
PS don't want this to end up as WWIII lol - just that I respect your opinion on grammar, and surprised by your conclusions here.

1. agreed
2. in summary I think "more .... " and "than.... " should be followed by the things which are the alternatives (said in "parallel construction") - except that the subject can be understood, eg your excellent example below:-
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
to me means
"More dentists recommend Colgate than (dentists - understood) go to church"

But as Judd says, in the Colgate sentence there is nothing against which to base "more" (sorta - other than context - but this is an exercise in super-correct ok? - pedantry if you prefer )

and (PS) it seems to have something to do with the number of times you repeat the verb. (to my subconscious anyway)

3. re : (More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust) - mmm bulldust intentionally has double meaning here - like could be manure or could be a report of questionable merit - leaving it either ambiguous (at best) or (imo) clearly that the reports are bulldust.

4. re (But if you meant "bulldust" to be construed as manure,
"More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other manure"
the sentence is good.)
mmm I disagree (same stumbling block), if that were the case you 'd have to say :-
"More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than recommend any other manure" (imo)

5. Grammar does not exist in isolation of "meaning". ok, probably true - and probably why no one else has ever found fault with that ad, lol.

6. re ("Will you vote for Howard or Rudd?") - I 'm lost mate - can't see the connection.

7. re ("More footballers wear Nike than any other boot.")
disagree again - same problem - but I have no problem with :-
"More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen". (if you get my ghist)
...........................

8. re ("More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church.") - perfect
(Now we are cooking with gas!) agreed .

9. (Are we saying more dentists are recommending Colgate than are recommending church going?) - nope

10. (Or are we saying that there are more dentists that recommend Colgate than there are dentists that go to church?) - yep - clear as day to me

11. (As a "stand alone" sentence the statement is ambiguous.) disagree

12. (For example, if we are reporting census data on dentists and have just provided numbers for Colgate users and, separately, numbers for churchgoers then the sense of the sentence is self evident.)
it's clear any which way , no ambiguity to me at all .

maybe this is another of those left brain right brain tests, lol ?

PS I'll be honest, the example I gave back there is still different .

and in any event, I personally don't think it's wrong to say the following, even if it's neater to say the parallel construction alternatives :-

"The use of debt collectors is in some respects more efficient that to write collection letters".

versus the parallel construction option:-
"To use debt collectors is in some respects more efficient that to write collection letters".


These days noone gives a shinbone lol - they just rip up the debt collector's (collectors') letters anyway .

 

[Wysiwyg]

this is funny - I cannot handle the forum layout of ASF! it is totally illogical for me. It always takes me to the first post of the thread rather than the last post.

it turns out that previous post I made was in response to something someone has psoted on the first page of this thread , eons ago, not reaslising that 16 additional pages of posts have occurred since!

Hope everyone appreciates my apostrophe refresher lesson!

Cheers Anne

Hi Anne, without trying to be a smarty-pants goanna legs, I want to say literacy is a whole and therefore could/should be worded ...

literate skills.

literacy skill. (not plural)

 

[2020hindsight]

this is funny - I cannot handle the forum layout of ASF! it is totally illogical for me. It always takes me to the first post of the thread rather than the last post.

it turns out that previous post I made was in response to something someone has psoted on the first page of this thread , eons ago, not reaslising that 16 additional pages of posts have occurred since!

Hope everyone appreciates my apostrophe refresher lesson!

Cheers Anne

Anne
rats - I thought you were gonna sort out that colgate ad for me , lol -

btw, if you go to :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/account/preferences
and take the option "linear, newest first", then you'll reverse the sequence of posts


but thanks for sorting out apostrophes.

PS And another thing lol-----
Why do they say "Harry is a dentist so we can't show you his face"(??)
Does that mean that this bloke (in this second Colgate ad) is just an actor - pretending he's a dentist?
Mrs Marsh Toothpaste Ad

 

[anne]

Hi 2020hindsight,

thanks for the tip on nagivating ASF better!

You're right about the colgate sentence being non-parallel.

I guess the "correct" version is closer to

Dentists recommend colgate more often than they recommend any other toothpaste.

More dentists recommend colgate than they do any other toothpaste.

i hate all this nit-picking though - Julia is right: the purpose of the colgate ad was to flog colgate and the best way to flog colgate is to use words that feel most comfortable to the target audience - think lowest common denominator!!!!

Colgate probably would have road-tested heaps of versions and selected this one to be teh best seller of toothpaste!

There used to be a Coke slogan that went: Coke has the taste you never get tired of.

That is without doubt an appalling sentence - but it sold coke really well!


A neater, more elegant way to say that would be Coke has the taste you never tire of - but it would be too high-brow for the target audience!

English language pedants also would attack the slogan for ending with a preposition! They'd prefer: Coke has the taste for which you never tire (!!!) or You never get tired of the taste of coke.


people enjoy splitting hairs too much ove the english language. It is often a case of too much knowledge is a dangerous weapon that is used to humiliate others! (that is correct, which is incorrect!!!)

i believe the biggest fault with most writing is that it is too damned stuffy - and wordy - and vague - and takes forever to get to the point!

Most documents would be vastly improved if they were mandatorily halved in length! That takes copious editing - something I hate doing - because it's hard work.

i spent all weekend writing an important letter - and I am still not finished it. it won't be the "proper english" that determines whether it succeeds or not but the tight prose, a convincing and well-detailed argument and a willingness to open with my key point rather than to close with it!

I am so glad I do not have to run writing workshops any more! Share investing is heaps more fun. But I have kinda moved on from that too and now want to fix up the world! you need more than correct english to fix up the world - you need solutions!

Sorry, I got off the topic!

PS The dentist can't show his face because dentists aren't allowed to advertise - is that what you were asking about?

Cheers Anne

 

[2020hindsight]

The Image - Colgate Commercial

ok, I agree that if you have the context, you can sing a totally irrelevant song and still get the message across

I think these are unambiguous:-
a) more smokers than non-smokes should use colgate
b) more smokers should use colgate than non-smokes (same as a) above)
c) smokers should use more colgate than non-smokers use

However, this is ambiguous IMO:-

d) "smokers should listen to colgate ads more than non-smokers."

Does that mean
(i) that smokers should listen to ads more than to non-smokers?
or
(ii) that smokers should listen more than non-smokers?
(?? I 've confused myself now lol ).

e) "smokers should listen to colgate ads more than to non-smokers."
no longer ambiguous


PS this girl is a smoker so they shouldn't have shown you her face

SPOT ON Anne -
You're the second person to agree lol -
only taken me 40 years and 18 posts on ASF lol

Dentists recommend colgate more often than they recommend any other toothpaste.

PS If any smokers are offended - please note that NO SMOKERS WERE USED IN THE FILMING OF THIS AD!!
THAT'S LICORICE STAIN! lol

 

[rederob]

2020
I should not need to clarify what is clear.
When you write ambiguously, which you have done with examples subsequent to my posted reply to you, then you must provide context or otherwise clarify the sense.
The Colgate example contains no ambiguity.
Colgate is a subset of toothpastes.
Hereford is a subset of cattle, not of bulldust.
We do not generally link Hereford with bulldust, so you would need to construct your sense more carefully in the example given - assuming you were not deliberately trying to be ambiguous.
The other sense you have alluded to requires a misreading of what you have written.

If you cannot see the link between my Rudd and Howard example, you are probably trying to reconstruct your own reality rather than understand the simple sense of what it means to vote Liberal or Labor. My point was that the Colgate, and Rudd/Howard examples do not require repetition. You want "recommend" to be repeated in the Colgate example. Why? It's redundant.

You have a preference for "More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen" rather than my example. This shows how poorly you comprehend. Your preference implies that footballers can wear "Nike" or "sportsmen". That's an absurdity because we know that footballers are unlikely to wear sportsmen ( although if Nike was a subset of sportsmen the sentence would be ok).
For much the same reason you have constructed others sentences that are equally nonsensical or are ambiguous.

I don't really care if you agree or disagree with what I write.
And you are welcome to believe what you will.
But please don't ask me to clarify something if you are not willing to open your mind to other possibilities.

 

[2020hindsight]

i hate all this nit-picking though - Julia is right: the purpose of the colgate ad was to flog colgate and the best way to flog colgate is to use words that feel most comfortable to the target audience - think lowest common denominator!!!!

Anne - here's a true story

Back in the 60's, Phillip Morris (I think) had an ad... "Phillip Morris, the sophisticated cigarette".

Most people think that means classy right? - not strictly so.

An old bloke I knew, a neighbour, about 90 at the time - I admired him greatly - wrote to them and pointed out that the dictionary in those days defined "sophisticated" something similar to the following :-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophisticated
(one of eight meanings here
American Heritage Dictionary -
so·phis·ti·cate
v. so·phis·ti·cat·ed, so·phis·ti·cat·ing, so·phis·ti·cates

To cause to become less natural, especially to make less naive and more worldly.
To make impure; adulterate.
To make more complex or inclusive; refine.

Now I agree that there is a second meaning (which has evolved from this one) which is closer to "classy", less naive, etc.

Anyway Phillip Morris sent him an acknowledgment that he was right - offered him a year's supply of their cigarettes ( which he declined, lol) - I think in the end he got a cash setllement to shut up.

Moral of the story ?
Companies should get these things right

 

[Pat]

From reading this enthralling "discussion", I have come to the conclusion the English language is far from perfect and is extremely illogical. I have much to learn if I would like to communicate in a similar way to... lets say... the Queen of England???

this is funny - I cannot handle the forum layout of ASF! it is totally illogical for me. It always takes me to the first post of the thread rather than the last post.

You can click on the little blue shaded icon (>) next to the name of the poster, like the one above (your quote), it will go to that post. Same thing when the results of a search appear etc.

 

[2020hindsight]

You have a preference for "More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen" rather than my example. This shows how poorly you comprehend. Your preference implies that footballers can wear "Nike" or "sportsmen".

wow, amazing - in summary rob

you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen"

and conversely, I find ambiguous what you find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other boot"

PS (since Julia , Anne and I agree - does that make us the coalition of the unwilling ?) lol

PS no need to get personal - It's only a matter of life and death lol.

PS did anyone see Media Watch? - sheesh I love that show !!

 

[noirua]

wow, amazing - in summary rob

you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen"

and conversely, I find ambiguous what you find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other boot"

PS (since Julia , Anne and I agree - does that make us the coalition of the unwilling ?) lol

PS no need to get personal - It's only a matter of life and death lol.

PS did anyone see Media Watch? - sheesh I love that show !!

Hi, Seems like a post to avoid antidisestablishmentairialism.

Or maybe, the longest word in the English language: Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

 

[2020hindsight]

wow, amazing - in summary rob

you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen"

and conversely, I find ambiguous what you find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other boot"

rob .....

suppose I replace "more... than..." with "either.... or ...", I get the following ...

would it be true to conclude...

you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
"Either dentists recommend Colgate or go to church"
"Either footballers wear Nike or other sportsmen"

and conversely, I find ambiguous what you find unambiguous, eg
"Either dentists recommend Colgate or other toothpaste"
"Either footballers wear Nike or any other boot"

PS In summary, I can't see why you are so sure that you're right


PS I would have no problem with the following :-
My rule is real simple ( though you keep assuming I'm twisting things)
....... that "either" and "or" must be followed by the alternative options. ..

..
"dentists recommend either Colgate or other toothpaste"
"footballers wear either Nike or any other boot"

 

[Julia]

PS (since Julia , Anne and I agree - does that make us the coalition of the unwilling ?) lol

Hey, 2020, just hold it. I acknowledged the point you were making but went on to say that I thought the original version was more appropriate in conveying the information, especially for an advertisement.

Rob and Anne (welcome to the discussion, Anne - great points you made)
both emphasised the point that - particularly in advertising - successfully conveying the message is much more important than using grammatically correct English which will often sound "wrong" to the target audience.

Any further dissection of this might be fun if you have nothing else to do, but really is becoming close to farcical imo.

Btw, Anne, how very unkind of you to suggest advertisers need to target the lowest common denominator! Ah, but how true.

 

[2020hindsight]

ok ok
Here are some more examples of that parallel construction stuff. (last ones I promise lol). My guess is that you'd say this is all old hat. Personally, I think these sentences sound better when adjusted a bit. (no biggie ok lol)

These are some examples from an old grammar book, last reprint 1971
Things might have changed I concede.

"Re-write the following, applying the principle of parallel construction in each case :-

1. He was a fine speaker, but one who did not excel in writing.
2. Please recommend a man who can take charge of the office and to supervise correspondence.
3. The end of the year is considered the best time for sending a representative abroad and to place new interstate orders
4. We ask you not to delay the order, and we do not want you to make any substitution
5. You accused him of neglecting his work. He was told by them that he had absented himself unnecessarily.
6. He was an unsatisfactory pupil, as he sometimes worked well, at other times paying very little attention.
7. A person who seeks cheap publicity can easily gain it, but he has to earn the respect of others if he wants it.
8. I have asked him to send a report and that he should also leave for Sydney at once.
9. He not only made the charge for collecting, but also for delivery.
10. He replied that his bank balance had increased, and to re-present the cheque.

 

[2020hindsight]

ok - what's wrong with these? .. (no need to say why, unless you're real keen )

1. They never have, and never will choose the right man for the job.
2. One man was arrested, and two injured.
3. This door is the entrance and exit from the hall.

and then there is "will" and "shall"

4. My brother says that he shall help me if he can spare the time.

(this book reckons that "shall" should be "will" - lol - try telling that to Standards Australia - I am on a Code Committee, and boy don't they like that word "shall" lol. )

 

[2020hindsight]

Further to that parallel construction stuff, here's a previous post where the construction is intentionally "diagonal" (called "chiasmus" apparently)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=205511&highlight=chiasmus#post205511

Repetition of ideas in inverted order
Repetition of grammatical structures in inverted order (not to be mistaken with antimetabole, in which identical words are repeated and inverted).

Examples

But O, what damned minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts; suspects, yet strong loves.—Shakespeare, Othello 3.3

The idea of affection occurs in "dotes" and "strongly loves"; the idea of doubting in "doubts" and "suspects". These two ideas occur in the quotation in an A B B A order, thus repeated and inverted

It is boring to eat; to sleep is fulfilling

The pattern is present participle-infinitive; infinitive-present participle

 

[2020hindsight]

btw apparently it is correct to say
He never has and never will cut the cloth correctly.
but not
Man never has and never will fly to Mars.
(never has flown and never will fly)

which is correct (and why) :-
My wife objected to me being late.
My wife objected to my being late. (?)

 

[2020hindsight]

Hey, 2020, just hold it. I acknowledged the point you were making but went on to say that I thought the original version was more appropriate in conveying the information, especially for an advertisement.

Rob and Anne (welcome to the discussion, Anne - great points you made)
both emphasised the point that - particularly in advertising - successfully conveying the message is much more important than using grammatically correct English which will often sound "wrong" to the target audience.

Any further dissection of this might be fun if you have nothing else to do, but really is becoming close to farcical imo.

Btw, Anne, how very unkind of you to suggest advertisers need to target the lowest common denominator! Ah, but how true.

yep - agreed will all that Julia
agree that Anne's posts is good too

as for the highly qualified support you gave me - yep acknowledge that as well in a two fold sense, the fact that it was support, and the fact that it was highly qualified, lol.

ps that's why I called it the "coalition of the unwilling" btw

PS Excuse me checking out these weird Shakepearean sentence constructions.
It's just that ...an engineer doesn't get many chances to use 'diagonal construction"

"But O, what a risk there is that buildings may fall
that lean, yet stand; hang on, but lean some more." etc