Pedants' Paradise

[Pabmusic]

I'm not posting these Americanisms to 'get at' SpottyTipps (or whatever the name is):

https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/Preprints/Oddments/werds.pdf

[Nick Armstrong]

"And Then There Were None" ... c.f. the current BBC three-parter, perpetuating the solecistic title that replaced the original due to the latter's 'N' word...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"And Then There Were None" ... c.f. the current BBC three-parter, perpetuating the solecistic title that replaced the original due to the latter's 'N' word...

Taken from the poem ... apologies: "doggerel" ... that features in the original novel, though, so the solecism is "authentic".

(Rather a good adaptation, I thought, by the way.)

[jean]

It's not a solecism. 'None' can mean 'not any' as well as 'not one', and can be found with a singular or plural verb even in the works of the best authors..

[Pabmusic]

It's not a solecism. 'None' can mean 'not any' as well as 'not one', and can be found with a singular or plural verb even in the works of the best authors..

With you entirely, Jean. Here's the Oxford Online Dictionary:

It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb: none of them is coming tonight rather than none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English nān meaning ‘not one’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.

[Nick Armstrong]

Thanks pabs and jean. So that's alright then!

Yours

The man in the orthotic insoles

(Standing corrected)

[vinteuil]

Thanks pabs and jean. So that's alright then!

... it may be 'all right'.

In this household, 'alright' it is not

[Pabmusic]

... it may be 'all right'.

In this household, 'alright' it is not

My father (b. 1924) always insisted on "all right" - so I do.

However, he never insisted on "to-day" (which he might have done) - so I don't.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm tempted to suggest that it's all together ridiculous to follow the patterns of one's parents, all though I accept that this might be discourteous to the point of being all most offensive; for which, I apologise.

[Bryn]

I'm tempted to suggest that it's all together ridiculous to follow the patterns of one's parents, all though I accept that this might be discourteous to the point of being all most offensive; for which, I apologise.

Orite. Fairy nuff.

[Beef Oven!]

I'm tempted to suggest that it's all together ridiculous to follow the patterns of one's parents, all though I accept that this might be discourteous to the point of being all most offensive; for which, I apologise.

I would agree with you fernie, that it is indeed ridiculous (and apologise ).

But it's ok to be fond. Nothing wrong with being sentimental on such matters (loved ones).

[ahinton]

My father (b. 1924) always insisted on "all right" - so I do.

However, he never insisted on "to-day" (which he might have done) - so I don't.

Ah, yes, Grewish English, as it is known and recognised in this and other examples such as tele-vision, gramo-phone (though notably not Shosta-kovich)...

[ahinton]

I'm tempted to suggest that it's all together ridiculous to follow the patterns of one's parents, all though I accept that this might be discourteous to the point of being all most offensive; for which, I apologise.

All together, now!...

[jean]

And since we have moved on to the question of whether and when one word is really two:

... c.f. ...

Why the intermediate full stop?

Confere is surely only ever one word.

[Beef Oven!]

All together, now!...

Now altogether?