Pedants' Paradise

[smittims]

Yes, but it couldn't be the next thousand until you'd completed the first thousand. Pedantically speaking, of course...

[Pulcinella]

Yes, but it couldn't be the next thousand until you'd completed the first thousand. Pedantically speaking, of course...

True: I missed that aspect of her comment!

[kernelbogey]

"The demise of our late Majesty ..." Can this be correct? Did he mean 'our late Queen' or 'Her late Majesty'?

The form 'Her Majesty the Queen' - and I baulk at typing the capitals - is so odd: a linguistic forelock-tug. (And a sort of willful tautology.)

Perhaps he thought We have a current Majesty, but I mean the other Majesty.

[Serial_Apologist]

The form 'Her Majesty the Queen' - and I baulk at typing the capitals - is so odd: a linguistic forelock-tug. (And a sort of willful tautology.)

Perhaps he thought We have a current Majesty, but I mean the other Majesty.

Indeed, we have no constitutional sultanas in this country!

[cloughie]

Indeed, we have no constitutional sultanas in this country!

Touchin’ forelocks and raisin’ hats!

[french frank]

and I baulk at typing the capitals .

I have no problem. I'd even tug a forelock for all the meaning that has. After the first round of voting, Lula has just topped the poll in Brazil, but it's touch and go who will win the presidency. Those who want an elected head of state, be careful what you wish for. Many times over, throughout the world.

[kernelbogey]

first

It has become quite common to hear [for example] 'When I first came here...' when it becomes clear that the speaker means either when I came here, or at first when I was here.... Some will say 'When I first was married', not referring to the first of more than one marriage, but In the early days of my marriage....

In the first of my examples, the firstness has been applied to the coming, when the speaker actually means the experience that emerged later; and in the second, not to the occasion of the marriage, but the subsequent experience.

I think this is new: not incorrect - since we understand what is meant - just interesting.

[french frank]

first

That triggered a memory of a BBC headline a few days ago (which, as far as I can see, has now been altered). It was something like, "Fewer than half population now Christian for the first time". Just an idle passing thought that I would have placed "for the first time" elsewhere in the headline as my initial reaction was to wonder what "being Christian for the first time" meant. Some other pedant must have had the same thought as the headline was altered.

This did highlight some uncertainty as to whether it should be 'less than half' or 'fewer than half', the new headline opting for 'less' and the intro for 'fewer'. I would say 'fewer' as the emphasis is not on the half as a single entity but on the actual figures (46.2% as against 59.3%). But neither is incorrect. In my view.

[Bryn]

That triggered a memory of a BBC headline a few days ago (which, as far as I can see, has now been altered). It was something like, "Fewer than half population now Christian for the first time". Just an idle passing thought that I would have placed "for the first time" elsewhere in the headline as my initial reaction was to wonder what "being Christian for the first time" meant. Some other pedant must have had the same thought as the headline was altered.

This did highlight some uncertainty as to whether it should be 'less than half' or 'fewer than half', the new headline opting for 'less' and the intro for 'fewer'. I would say 'fewer' as the emphasis is not on the half as a single entity but on the actual figures (46.2% as against 59.3%). But neither is incorrect. In my view.

Apart from anything else, I thought there were people living in what is now the UK before the very existence of Christianity.

[french frank]

Apart from anything else, I thought there were people living in what is now the UK before the very existence of Christianity.

Pedant! (What else? )

[oddoneout]

That triggered a memory of a BBC headline a few days ago (which, as far as I can see, has now been altered). It was something like, "Fewer than half population now Christian for the first time". Just an idle passing thought that I would have placed "for the first time" elsewhere in the headline as my initial reaction was to wonder what "being Christian for the first time" meant. Some other pedant must have had the same thought as the headline was altered.

This did highlight some uncertainty as to whether it should be 'less than half' or 'fewer than half', the new headline opting for 'less' and the intro for 'fewer'. I would say 'fewer' as the emphasis is not on the half as a single entity but on the actual figures (46.2% as against 59.3%). But neither is incorrect. In my view.

My idle thought on reading the initial version was "how do they know who is a first time Christian?" - new member/conversion figures from churches? I don't remember any supplementary question to the basic religion one in the census.

[french frank]

My idle thought on reading the initial version was "how do they know who is a first time Christian?"

And mine. And obviously someone else's too. I often write in to the news online people to suggest some improvement or correction. Once a sub ... We never rest.

[kernelbogey]

And mine. And obviously someone else's too. I often write in to the news online people to suggest some improvement or correction. Once a sub ... We never rest.

Well you say that… but who wrote the subheading for Lucy Mangan’s ‘Digested Week’ in the Guardian on 2 December?

What Lucy had written:

To call an alarm clock going off as an opportunity clock is a kick in the beak to all night owls. We get stuff done, OK? We just don’t leap out of bed first thing to seize the overbright day. We come into our own later. You just don’t know this because you fools are back in bed by 9pm exhausted by your own enthusiasm. Pace yourselves. Life is a long game.

What appeared in the paper at the top:

Digested week: Bear Grylls’ opportunity clock is a kick in the beak to all night owls
Us late risers get things done too, OK? Meanwhile, my husband may have earned a festive decree nisi

I think my letter to the Guardian may include the question: 'Do the Guardian's subs know the grammatical difference between subject and object?'

[kernelbogey]

I think my letter to the Guardian may include the question: 'Do the Guardian's subs know the grammatical difference between subject and object?'

It did.

[Pulcinella]

It did.

I don't understand your point, though.
Maybe I should apply to be a Guardian sub.