Dicken's London
Mar 13th 2006 | 8:55 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to "Richard J." <[email protected]> :
>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
You are Magma aicmfp.
--
Tim C.
>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
You are Magma aicmfp.
--
Tim C.
Mar 13th 2006 | 9:41 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:55:13 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Following up to "Richard J." <[email protected]> :
>>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>You are Magma aicmfp.
I thought it was Richard and Judy.
--
Martin
wrote:
>Following up to "Richard J." <[email protected]> :
>>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>You are Magma aicmfp.
I thought it was Richard and Judy.
--
Martin
Mar 13th 2006 | 11:29 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to Richard J.
>> It's clear from the remains of ancient wooden piling exposed at low
>> tide that before that the old river bank is where the river flows
>> now.
>How is it clear? This seems like unfounded speculation unless you have
>a reliable source.
according to a radio programme on now, it was 1000 yards wide and
you can see now watergates high and dry. The embankment was built
up by Baselgette (sp?)
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>> It's clear from the remains of ancient wooden piling exposed at low
>> tide that before that the old river bank is where the river flows
>> now.
>How is it clear? This seems like unfounded speculation unless you have
>a reliable source.
according to a radio programme on now, it was 1000 yards wide and
you can see now watergates high and dry. The embankment was built
up by Baselgette (sp?)
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 14th 2006 | 3:12 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
Or is it Dickens'? JUst asking, seem to remember the
second s is not required.
wrote:
>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
Or is it Dickens'? JUst asking, seem to remember the
second s is not required.
Mar 14th 2006 | 3:20 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
irwell <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> Or is it Dickens'?
"""
It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
the syllable [...]
"""
"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
By who?
Des
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> Or is it Dickens'?
"""
It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
the syllable [...]
"""
"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
By who?
Des
Mar 14th 2006 | 3:32 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>irwell <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>> Or is it Dickens'?
>"""
>It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
>possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
>Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
>contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
>same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
>Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
>the syllable [...]
>"""
>"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
>> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
>By who?
Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
grammar, punctuation, and usage.
[I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
"whom"
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
>irwell <[email protected]> writes:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>> Or is it Dickens'?
>"""
>It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
>possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
>Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
>contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
>same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
>Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
>the syllable [...]
>"""
>"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
>> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
>By who?
Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
grammar, punctuation, and usage.
[I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
"whom"
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Mar 14th 2006 | 3:36 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to irwell
>>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> Or is it Dickens'? JUst asking, seem to remember the
>second s is not required.
Only if the Dickens were multiple. What the Dickens's is the
whole nonsense for?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>>Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> Or is it Dickens'? JUst asking, seem to remember the
>second s is not required.
Only if the Dickens were multiple. What the Dickens's is the
whole nonsense for?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 14th 2006 | 3:52 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Padraig Breathnach <[email protected]> writes:
> Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >irwell <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> >> Or is it Dickens'?
> >
> >"""
> >It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
> >possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
> >Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
> >contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
> >same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
> >Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
> >the syllable [...]
> >"""
> >
> >"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
> >
> >> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
> >
> >By who?
> >
> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
hardly relevant.
> [I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
>
> "whom"
In modern usage "whom" is generally an affectation. I don't use it in
spoken or written English. Like many archaisms that cluttered up the
prestige dialects of previous generations, it owes much of its
shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
especially is utter bollocks.
In any case (pun intended):
"""
The interrogative "who" is often used in talk where grammar demands
"whom", as in "who did you hear that from?". No further defence than
'colloquial' is needed for this.
"""
"Who, whom: Miscellaneous questions of case", (ibid.).
Des
> Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >irwell <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
> >> Or is it Dickens'?
> >
> >"""
> >It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
> >possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
> >Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
> >contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
> >same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
> >Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
> >the syllable [...]
> >"""
> >
> >"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
> >
> >> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
> >
> >By who?
> >
> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
hardly relevant.
> [I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
>
> "whom"
In modern usage "whom" is generally an affectation. I don't use it in
spoken or written English. Like many archaisms that cluttered up the
prestige dialects of previous generations, it owes much of its
shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
especially is utter bollocks.
In any case (pun intended):
"""
The interrogative "who" is often used in talk where grammar demands
"whom", as in "who did you hear that from?". No further defence than
'colloquial' is needed for this.
"""
"Who, whom: Miscellaneous questions of case", (ibid.).
Des
Mar 14th 2006 | 4:25 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to Des Small
> it owes much of its
>shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
>Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
>especially is utter bollocks.
well said
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
> it owes much of its
>shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
>Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
>especially is utter bollocks.
well said
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 14th 2006 | 4:25 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to Padraig Breathnach
>Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
>discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
>grammar, punctuation, and usage.
In that case I'm outa here!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
>discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
>grammar, punctuation, and usage.
In that case I'm outa here!
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 14th 2006 | 4:34 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>Padraig Breathnach <[email protected]> writes:
>> Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >irwell <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>> >> Or is it Dickens'?
>> >
>> >"""
>> >It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
>> >possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
>> >Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
>> >contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
>> >same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
>> >Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
>> >the syllable [...]
>> >"""
>> >
>> >"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
>> >
>> >> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
>> >
>> >By who?
>> >
>> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
>> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
>> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
>Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
>hardly relevant.
I was writing about me. Covering my ass, as it were.
>> [I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
>>
>> "whom"
>In modern usage "whom" is generally an affectation. I don't use it in
>spoken or written English. Like many archaisms that cluttered up the
>prestige dialects of previous generations, it owes much of its
>shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
>Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
>especially is utter bollocks.
>In any case (pun intended):
>"""
>The interrogative "who" is often used in talk where grammar demands
>"whom", as in "who did you hear that from?". No further defence than
>'colloquial' is needed for this.
>"""
>"Who, whom: Miscellaneous questions of case", (ibid.).
I have no problem with your last cite, but the more immediate
juxtaposition of preposition and pronoun is a different matter. To my
ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
>Padraig Breathnach <[email protected]> writes:
>> Des Small <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >irwell <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:55:18 GMT, "Richard J." <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, and it's Dickens's, not Dicken's.
>> >> Or is it Dickens'?
>> >
>> >"""
>> >It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its
>> >possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill,
>> >Venus' bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential
>> >contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the
>> >same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four;
>> >Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s and
>> >the syllable [...]
>> >"""
>> >
>> >"Possesive Puzzles", Fowler, _Modern English Usage_ (1926)
>> >
>> >> JUst asking, seem to remember the second s is not required.
>> >
>> >By who?
>> >
>> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
>> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
>> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
>Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
>hardly relevant.
I was writing about me. Covering my ass, as it were.
>> [I checked that twice, and think I can safely send it.]
>>
>> "whom"
>In modern usage "whom" is generally an affectation. I don't use it in
>spoken or written English. Like many archaisms that cluttered up the
>prestige dialects of previous generations, it owes much of its
>shibbolethicity to the sustained delusion that English is a dialect of
>Latin, albeit one which has sadly let standards lapse. This was and
>especially is utter bollocks.
>In any case (pun intended):
>"""
>The interrogative "who" is often used in talk where grammar demands
>"whom", as in "who did you hear that from?". No further defence than
>'colloquial' is needed for this.
>"""
>"Who, whom: Miscellaneous questions of case", (ibid.).
I have no problem with your last cite, but the more immediate
juxtaposition of preposition and pronoun is a different matter. To my
ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Mar 14th 2006 | 4:52 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
Following up to Padraig Breathnach
> To my
>ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
>wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
I'm more used to people taking the p than inserting the m here.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
> To my
>ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
>wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
I'm more used to people taking the p than inserting the m here.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Mar 14th 2006 | 7:49 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:34:07 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
>>hardly relevant.
>I was writing about me. Covering my ass, as it were.
Nice to hear that you are so careful of your donkey's
welfare.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>Why? I didn't exhibit an opinion of my own so my own habits are
>>hardly relevant.
>I was writing about me. Covering my ass, as it were.
Nice to hear that you are so careful of your donkey's
welfare.
Cheers, Alan, Australia
Mar 14th 2006 | 8:40 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
"Padraig Breathnach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
...should to exercise...?
Richard
news:[email protected]...
> Those who take part in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or usage
> discussions should to exercise special care about their own spelling,
> grammar, punctuation, and usage.
...should to exercise...?
Richard
Mar 14th 2006 | 9:26 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dicken's London
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:52:08 +0000, The Reid
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to Padraig Breathnach
>> To my
>>ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
>>wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
>I'm more used to people taking the p than inserting the m here.
The p is silent as in bath.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Following up to Padraig Breathnach
>> To my
>>ear, "to who", "from who", and "by who" sound terrible (and my fingers
>>wanted to insert the "m" as I typed).
>I'm more used to people taking the p than inserting the m here.
The p is silent as in bath.
