There is, but the knowledgeable -- the adequately trained, if you like -- do not suffer from it. Men's is the correct usage: the plural is indicated in the vowel mutation and the apostrophe goes before the S because there is no need to stack plural formation on plural formation; cf. English's avoidance of the double negative. The apostrophe may be taken to stand for the missing possessive pronouns like his, hers, theirs -- "the men-theirs."

I had this cold by elementary school. What's the others' story?

Which point didn't actually get made then, but it is true.

There was no understanding, nuanced or otherwise, to that example at all, which is why I remember it so vividly and why I'm so thoroughly appalled even today -- the error was too elementary for an adult's powers. I did not achieve my quality of written English through either exceptional genius nor magic. If anything, it was being trained by people who got it -- and could teach others to get it also.

I agree: it was quite the misapplication, wasn't it, to insist that you shouldn't end an English sentence a preposition with. Up with this we should not put. (Anyone who wants to imagine Churchill making Yoda sounds is free to.)

I'm afraid this amounts to a plea for incompetence, which I reject at the nonce and always shall and will. Arbitrarily. :p

As do I.

Another plea for incompetence? All right, why?

Like leaving off the final E of gaffe and substituting for this a hooked snagger of fish and bales, or several of them -- though we'd agree that were we to get ourselves mixed up with the pointy parts of one or more gaffs, they would be about as obvious to us as anything is likely to get. Colo(u)rful too. And difficult to bear.

In my experience poor writing and muddled communication are so often associated with poor thinking that that is the way to bet. I am not afraid of making judgements; not the way some would like us to be -- that these some may be preserved from the social consequences of gaffes, or the general understanding that some people's ideas are just not very good. Political correctness is a form of intellectual tyranny towards that very end.

If you insist. As for me, I beg to differ, and I can make it felt. Or sandpaper.

Language can become art rather than engineering -- I'm good at the art end, and can follow the engineering.

Well, THIS is a chuckle.
 

Hmm. See above, Bruce. You can pretend I can't argue the point, but everyone will see you pretending.

And if you're going to expose yourself that thoroughly, you might want to consider... hmm, tattoos.

It's funny that, because when I read you, I read a person with excellent grammar skills, a top-notch vocabulary... and terrible communication abilities.

It's hard, because every one of us will read each other differently. But I always read you as trying to impress everyone with flowery prose. For me, it totally obscures whatever you were writing about at the time. More UG prose to slug through? Long sentences to decode, $1000 words where $1 words would do? What a pain in the ass, I'll bypass this post and nothing will be lost.

The shorthand I read in you is "I'm correct, because I'm very smart." Here you make that very point. And this annoys me; because the biggest lesson I have learned in my life is that my high intelligence and good education are great tools to have, but they entitle me to exactly jack shit.

No, you aren't correct merely because you're very smart. No, you aren't correct because you can write well. Don't you see all the people who are very smart and who can write well, who are making massive errors all the time?

(edit: I'm sure there are folks who read my stuff and think I'm doing the same thing. It's hard, because every one of us will read each other differently...)

Thanks Undertoad. You make the point very eloquently.

To underline it: you can tell little, if anything, abbout a person from their competence (or lack thereof) in written English.

Not everyone's experience of education is the same and not everybody's natural inclinations suit the teaching styles that have been used with them. Not everyone has the same natural aptitudes. I know, from my work that there are many adults for whom these seemingly simple concepts are in fact very difficult to grasp. One of the most intelligent people I have ever met came into my class with written skills more appropriate to a six year old.



Really? I only had that in the last few years. In fact, I didn't fully understand the plural possessive apostrophe until I studied for my level 3 Adult Lit support quals. Care to reach some conclusions about me, my intelligence, my attention levels, or my school experience, from that?

No, it amounts to [pointing out to you that you are over concerned with something others may consider trivial. When I write a degree level essay, I take the time to make sure that it is grammatically correct and contains no spelling errors. Some of that (most) comes naturally, some requires a little more thought and on occasion I have sought more information about certain types of puntuation or an unusual spelling. Here? On the forums? I don't. I am amongst friends and am having a written 'conversation'.

Well done, you spotted a typo. This must mean you are superspecial.

Well done. You have found an instance where latinate grammar fits our language. *applauds*. English is a hybrid language, it contains both germanic and latinate roots. Some of the rules of Latin apply, some don't.

e.g. To go boldly where no man has gone before.
To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Spoken English allows both those sentence structures. Indeed, the second sentence (which by latinate grammar would be considered incorrect) has more resonance and power and is therefore more suited to its purpose than the 'correct' sentence.

There are two types of 'grammar'. There is the 'grammar' which our language naturally has. It is born of the human brain's inherent understanding of grammar and the organic development of a living language. Then there is the 'grammar' we've been talking about in this thread. That 'grammar' is something which describes our language. It is a tool to understand language. At a time when learned men in England were attempting to nail the language down (and describe it fully), they utilised Latin grammar, as Latin grammer was a) written down and codified by the Romans and therefore was an obvious base to draw from and b) deeply fashionable. These days, linguistics students are taught grammar in a very different way.

Very good. Me too. Not everyone is (or wants to be ) an artist or an engineer. This does not make them lesser people.

They have become so alike it's really hard to tell Rich. But yes- at that time it was all the good god-fearing conservative wacko samaritans. It's so Orwellian out there and there is no good way to describe it to the extent it deserves.
I only said "Fuck Bush" because that was the exact terminology thrown around in many of those Colorado "crimes" under investigation. (btw) Don't worry- I don't even get my humor sometimes- too personal and dark.
Really they were just hunting down property (cars and houses too) and if profanity is illegal, well- find some criminals at any local coffee shop or bar. Someone in either of those places can have too much and let it loose. Oh and they did. I'm not sure why they wouldn't cuss. A lot.........
Before I left they were monitoring certain neighborhoods for domestic violence and they could confiscate your property then too.

And there's something that couldn't possibly be open to abuse...

As far as I'm concerned, they should have banned the 'b' word when the rap song came out saying 'B-----es ain't sh-t but h--es and tricks'. Now that too many knuckleheads are adopting the same lifestyle as that blasted song, the banning comes too little too late.

Banning words doesn't solve anything. Ideas will be passed even if they have to make up words to do it. Censorship solves nothing.

I agree with Bruce. These songs are not the problem, but just exposing it.

As I said, I don't think the problem lies with the misogynist songs, but the fact that teenagers of both sexes will buy into it and think that this is a "cool" or acceptable lifestyle. It shows that our society still has many misogynist tenancies and embraces extreme gender stereotypes.

Sounds about like Colorado Springs. The religious wackos in that area are appalling.

There should be a law against where you're in the movie theater and somebody goes "shhh" and you go "it" ...

And you'd lose out thereby. I'm complex, but I'm worth it. Long or short, I impress. Angering the troglodytic -- because of what they are -- is simply part of the deal. I also anger the philistine, both at the start and in the follow-on, the conflict there being that they wish to stay philistines, and I don't think they should. This part of the ruckus is my screed against philistinism in the language.

Of course not; I seek out the correct, and then write well about it.

And I hit them on it about as often as anyone, when I understand their error.

Most of all I think its your out and out modesty that impresses me UG.

The humblest of the proud, the proudest of the humble
 

My humility is greater than your humility!

Shall we continue the satire for another six or seven posts, or have we really done enough? :D

It's not the heat, it's the humility, that's so oppressive.