Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ASF spelling and grammar lessons

Jump to new
rederob said:
"Kind of" is redundant.
"Which" is redundant.
The comma is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I've explained the 'which and the comma' above.

However, 'kind of' is necessary to indicate part of a common grouping that is being identified:

  • these kinds of clothes should not be worn;
  • these types of cars should not be on this road;
  • this type of bird is extinct (e.g. large flightless);
  • this type of behavior is unacceptable here.

It's OK to use a semi-colon as it indicates there are more examples to follow, then end with a period.
But in computer typing they have become redundant. Much neater without them!
 
Spanning Tree said:
It's "People's Republic of China," not "Peoples' Republic of China." You use peoples' only if you want to talk about peoples and their possessions, e.g. "I live in Indiginous peoples' land."

This is referring to many indiginous peoples.
Click to expand...

You're correct on the Chinese example.

* Indigenous people's land is land held by one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' land is land held by more than one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' lands are two or more areas of land and held by more than one race.

white_crane said:
Extra: Try reading some of Henry James' works. One sentence can sometimes take up half a page! :eek:
Click to expand...

Is he a lawyer by trade? ;)
 
Ah Doris, we just need to clone you and get 10,000 of the result into our schools. There might then be just a chance of turning out some students who can put a reasonable sentence together.
Goodonya.

Thinking a little more about the use of punctuation, and starting sentences with a conjunction, perhaps we do this rather more on the internet where we are limited to seeing the words on the screen, missing out on the communication we experience in face to face or even just audio contact.
It's much easier for misunderstanding and hurt feelings to occur with just the visual textso maybe some rules of grammar are bent to enhance the communication.
 
2020hindsight said:
jeez doris !! ... bags not argueing grammar with you !!

It would be like Biden vs Palin - but in reverse lol. ;)

(PS I've personally never heard of a restrictive modifier, ... let alone a nonrestrictive one :eek: )

And never would I doogie ;)
Click to expand...

lol

As long as you're not arguing spelling. lol.
Twelve hours to go 2020!
Note I spelt words fewer than 100.

Julia, note I used 'fewer' for numbers and not 'less'. ;)

Ever notice how the Americans say 'farther' when referring to distance (very good English)
- whereas most Aussies say 'further'?


Great job Great Pig!
 
Julia did you hear the survey results (yesterday?) which showed that infants reared by their grandparents (and not Day Care), speak better and are more emotionally and socially stable?

My 75 yo neighbour complained to me, yesterday, about the behaviour of one of her grandchildren. He hid the key to the quad bike so his brother couldn't find it and have a ride. When I asked if she'd told her son, she said she didn't want to interfere. If only grandparents could use their wisdom more wisely.

My grandson is six and keeps saying, "Grandma, do you know what I done today?"
His mother speaks perfect English and is finding it very hard to change this.
I keep telling him: Today I do, yesterday I did, I have done.
But he's not corrected at school and the other kids say this, so it persists.
Big cuddle when he says it correctly! ;)

2020... notice I didn't use a comma after 'infants':

which showed that infants reared by their grandparents, speak better
It's a nonrestrictive modifier. 'Infants' and 'grandparents' are both essential to the meaning - the subject!

* notice I used commas:

complained to me, yesterday, about...
That's a restrictive modifier. If you take out the words between the commas it still makes sense and the meaning of the sentence is not affected.

Which reminds me:
Some people have that effect on you.
But you can affect them too.
Yet if they can effect a change then well and good!
 
Doris said:
You're correct on the Chinese example.

* Indigenous people's land is land held by one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' land is land held by more than one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' lands are two or more areas of land and held by more than one race.

Is he a lawyer by trade? ;)
Click to expand...

Hello Doris, I find the use of apostophes for contractions quite a universally accepted practice but I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.:2twocents :)
 
Mazrox said:
"people" is already plural? ...you would say "the children's smiles", not "the childrens' smiles"
Click to expand...
yes... But both people's and peoples' are correct, they just mean "belonging to the people", and "belonging to the peoples" respectively. I think Joe meant the former, so "people's" it should be :)
 
"Rarely is the question asked .."Is our children learning?" " :eek:

"We find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling" !! :eek::eek:

"A literate country, and a hopefuler country"

George Bush Idiot Quotes
 
Will bush pass the baton to Palin?

Will we get a book of Palinisms?

29nusee.gif
 
Wysiwyg said:
Hello Doris, I find the use of apostophes for contractions quite a universally accepted practice but I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.:2twocents :)
Click to expand...

I correct myself here (blushes slightly) as I didn`t fully understand possessive nouns.I still think they are used to compensate for poor sentence structure yet handy for oral communication.
 
Doris said:
Good try SP!


But I put 'kind of things' in italics, making it the subject, thus the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier and does not require the 'which' nor the comma.

"the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier"


If I said "the subject is a nonrestrictive modifier", I wouldn't need the commas as removing "of this" makes the noun (the word 'subject') a restrictive modifier.

My adding "of this" makes it specific that I'm referring to 'this' particular 'subject'.


Make sense? That's what language is basically about... communicating. :)

I'm also reminded that when you have one negative, it should be followed by a second in the context:

"does not require the 'which' nor the comma."

- - rather than: 'does not require the 'which' or the comma.'

Just thought:
I said - 'If I said':

If I were to have said 'If I were to have said' instead, I would have needed the 'were' as it is always a plural verb after the imaginary 'if'.

Love the English language! :confused:
Click to expand...

Doris,

Thanks for your time taken to type the above.:)

Regards
 
Wysiwyg said:
I correct myself here (blushes slightly) as I didn`t fully understand possessive nouns. I still think they are used to compensate for poor sentence structure yet handy for oral communication.
Click to expand...

I took this to mean the use of apostrophes made the USE of written words hard to comprehend when the apostrophe is in the wrong place.

But what did you mean by: 'used to compensate for poor sentence structure'?

Wysiwyg said:
I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.
Click to expand...

Just as: "I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for"

Did you mean:

* I think an apostrophe, trailing plurals, makeS up for... or:

* I think (delete 'an') apostrophe-trailing plurals make up for... :confused:


Reminds me of an example I use with students as a punctuation exercise:

Woman. Without her, man is nothing!
Woman without her man, is nothing. ;)
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Doris,

Thanks for your time taken to type the above.:)

Regards
Click to expand...

Thanks SP. I appreciate your passion for words.
I have ONE DAY left of holidays then back to the testosterone infected males!
... and the amygdala infected females.
I earn my living with adolescents. Lovitt. :)
 
Doris said:
I took this to mean the use of apostrophes made the USE of written words hard to comprehend when the apostrophe is in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

To me :) I think it is sentence structure that should be used sparingly.If sentences were to surround possessive nouns in regular written format I would not read because they grate like finger-nails on a chalk-board and slip off the page like spaghetti.

Thank-you for helping out with grammar as I do like to improve this side of typing and writing.My spelling is very good.

Anyone have a rule on hyphenating words?
 
Finger-nails I would write fingernails because they are specifically nails on the fingers and chalk-board I would write chalkboard because it is not a chalk (mineral) board but a board for writing on with chalk.Blackboard is more widely accepted.

Thank-you stays the same because it is a note of thanks and directed specifically to one person.
 
Doris said:
I've explained the 'which and the comma' above.

However, 'kind of' is necessary to indicate part of a common grouping that is being identified:
Click to expand...
Where the subject is contextualised I agree.
However too often we have to assume the nature of a grouping.
Specifying the "kind" reduces error in interpretation of group and more sharply focuses the intended sense.
For example
"Hooning won't be tolerated."
Or
"This kind of behaviour won't be tolerated."

From a grammatical perspective compound nouns of assemblage are ugly.
 
Hesitation and stammering are indicated by hyphens:"I reached for the w-w-w-watering can."
 
I recently asked my 15 year old grandson whether he had read any good books lately. His answer;

"Yeah, the TV guide"
 
Top