Believe it or not, the thread title is a sentence that makes sense! :)
That is, bison from Buffalo intimidate (other) bison from Buffalo that bison from Buffalo intimidate.
Fun!
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
I prefer, a bare bear bears bare bears.
I think that objection 7 is the one that counts:
That is, the absence of the relative pronoun "that" is more than a mere lack of a "grammatical cue," as objection 4 would have it. It is a structural flaw.
Okay, what about this one?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo?
So in other words:
Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison intimidate(,) intimidate Buffalo bison (that) Buffalo bison intimidate.
Is that one flawed too? Because if not, then I just made a sentence by repeating a word 11 times! :D
Maybe I should stare at these things longer, so long that I end up truly grokking them, but to me, as soon as you have a restrictive relative clause in play (referring to only some buffalo), you gotta have that relative pronoun (classically "that," although "which," if incorrect, is now common enough to be ok).
Have I mentioned that I'm retired from the ed biz? I can't tell you how happy I am to have retired from the ed biz. Like, very very very happy. *ranting smiley*
Congratulations, skdadl! Sorry to drag you back into it. But I think, way down deep, there's a grammer nerd in there who loves this stuff. :D
Anyhow, I think I see what you mean. So the sentence really needs the "that", huh? I generally put it in when I'm writing as well, but I've often noticed that people don't - and in print, too!
Don't get me started on how convoluted sentences seem to me because of the new style of never putting commas anywhere anymore.
Oh, there are lots of "that"s that can be left out. Generally speaking, if there's a relative pronoun you can drop (as I just did there), it's a "that," not a "which."
Oh, please don't do this to me, Michelle. I could explain the difference, but I'm a retired person now, and I'm busy reading seed catalogues. Numbers always hurt my head, but now grammar does too. I don't mind letting the language <strike>go to hell in a handbasket</strike> evolve from now on, because I quit!
What do you think of lilacs?
I like the one I first heard in elementary school:
Jane where John had had had had had had had had had had had a better impression on the teacher.
Exercise: Punctuate the above.
(Darn, she didn't bite at "grammer"...heh heh.)
Anyhoooo. Lilacs are beautiful. :)
Unionist: Good god!
Lilacs, especially in April, are treacherous. Even cruel.
Unionist: Originally, Catchfire had 'had "had had"' and 'had had "had" but decided that 'had had "had," had had "had had." "Had Had" had had' would have a better effect on Unionist.
I got it!
Jane, where John had "had had," had "had." "Had had" had a better impression on the teacher.
Or!
.--- .- -. . --..-- / .-- .... . .-. . / .--- --- .... -. / .... .- -.. / .-..-. .... .- -.. / .... .- -.. --..-- .-..-. / .... .- -.. / .-..-. .... .- -.. .-.-.- .-..-. / .-..-. .... .- -.. / .... .- -.. .-..-. / .... .- -.. / .- / -... . - - . .-. / .. -- .--. .-. . ... ... .. --- -. / --- -. / - .... . / - . .- -.-. .... . .-. .-.-.-
Oh, ya, well, I mean, you can always win an argument if you're gonna play the 1812 Overture.
skdadl, do commas go before or after the quotation marks?
Also: do I pay you the five cents before or after I ask all these questions? :D
(Just erase the "psychiatric" and put in "editing".)
Because, you see, I've always thought it made way more sense to put the punctuation outside of the quotes if the punctuation isn't part of the quote. But from what I understand, different style guides are different.
skdadl, just submit your invoice directly to Kim.
It really is a Lucy sort of topic, ain't it? (When are you going to pull the football away, Michelle?)
Putting the commas (Lucy: "the little curvy things") and periods inside double quotation marks is a North American typographer's thing. To them, the li'l curvy things and li'l dots just looked too li'l to be hanging out there past double quotation marks all on their lonesomes. British style is to use single quotation marks as the base, and they then do what you think should be done -- ie, if comma doesn't belong to original, put it outside. But that doesn't look so bad with singles.
Lucy: Could you fix this? Put in the little curvy things?
Charlie Brown: You mean commas?
Lucy: *major eyeroll* Whatever.
I got it!
Jane, where John had "had had," had "had." "Had had" had a better impression on the teacher.
Close, but no cigarillo - mine had 11 had's, yours only has 8. Now, if you had had 3 more hads, my had would have been off to you.
Oh shoot! Okay. Hang on.
Jane, where John had had "had had," had had "had." "Had had" had had a better impression on the teacher.
I remember something about how the word "fuck" is so versatile that you can make a sentence completely out of various forms of the word. But I forget the sentence. I could probably think one up if I had the time or inclination...but I've gotta run.
P.S. Thanks, skdadl! I knew I wasn't wrong about the punctuation outside the quotation marks!
Oh shoot! Okay. Hang on.
Jane, where John had had "had had," had had "had." "Had had" had had a better impression on the teacher.
Yes!
ACK!
I second that ACK, and raise you a GAH!
but, but, but.... they are bison, not buffalo
Buffalo! Cheese, now being made in Ontario.
Ontario farmers embrace water buffalo