Pedants' Paradise

[Pabmusic]

'Afghanistan has changed beyond recognition, and that should be recognised.' - top NATO General in Afghanistan on R4 Today this morning. Yes it makes sense, but is inelegant.

The problem I have with it is that the writer recognises it's changed, which is precisely what he we can't regognise.

(Picky, aren't I?)

[jean]

I think that's precisely the problem - repetition of itself isn't inlegant, but it should be used to intensify the meaning of the repeated word, not to pick it up in a slightly different sense.

[Pulcinella]

I think that's precisely the problem - repetition of itself isn't inlegant, but it should be used to intensify the meaning of the repeated word, not to pick it up in a slightly different sense.

Surely repetition in itself or by itself, not of itself better here?
The word itself is not repeated!

[Pabmusic]

I think that's precisely the problem - repetition of itself isn't inlegant, but it should be used to intensify the meaning of the repeated word, not to pick it up in a slightly different sense.

Too true.

[french frank]

'Afghanistan has changed beyond recognition, and that should be recognised.' - top NATO General in Afghanistan on R4 Today this morning. Yes it makes sense, but is inelegant.

'Acknowledged' is often a good alternative, and one which might replace 'recognised' here.

I would have further things to say about Waterstones, but even pedants grow weary …

[jean]

Surely repetition in itself or by itself, not of itself better here?...

Not sure if that was a serious point, but if so...

...If of herself she will not love,
Nothing can make her:
The devil take her!

[Pulcinella]

Not sure if that was a serious point, but if so...

...If of herself she will not love,
Nothing can make her:
The devil take her!

It was serious in the sense of showing how easily ambiguities can slip into what we say or write.
Avoidable in this instance by commas: Repetition, of itself, isn't inelegant.
But I would still write in or by!
I'm not sure that you completely understood my comment, as surely your response addresses a different issue: of with a 'self' word?

[jean]

No, I didn't understand your comment.

But as to ambiguities, surely one always reads a sentence in context? I'm referring in the post of mine you quote to a repetition that's already occurred, of recognition/recognised in the post I'm commenting on.

It would be rather perverse of me to start talking about a repetition of a completely different word, which (as you say) nobody has actually repeated, or seems likely to.

(It's true I could have written in itself, or even in and of itself if I'd wanted, but by itself would not have given the sense I wanted.)

[Pulcinella]

No, I didn't understand your comment.

But as to ambiguities, surely one always reads a sentence in context? I'm referring in the post of mine you quote to a repetition that's already occurred, of recognition/recognised in the post I'm commenting on.

It would be rather perverse of me to start talking about a repetition of a completely different word, which (as you say) nobody has actually repeated, or seems likely to.

(It's true I could have written in itself, or even in and of itself if I'd wanted, but by itself would not have given the sense I wanted.)

You wrote: repetition of itself.
There was no repetition of the word 'itself' in the sentence you were commenting on.
Your response created an ambiguity that I happened to think you would have avoided.
That's all.

[jean]

There was no repetition of the word 'itself' in the sentence you were commenting on.

Precisely so.

The context of my post was another post, in which there was to be found a repetition of a word quite different from the word itself. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to expect the word 'repetition' in my post to be understood as referring to the post I was responding to rather than taken in isolation.

Had I wished to make a metalinguistic comment about the word itself, I would have written "repetition of 'itself'" or "repetition of itself".

[french frank]

So, getting back to Waterstones, which of the following have either an apostrophe in the wrong place or no apostrophe where there ought to be one:

teachers … teacher's … teachers' ?

[vinteuil]

So, getting back to Waterstones, which of the following have either an apostrophe in the wrong place or no apostrophe where there ought to be one:

teachers … teacher's … teachers' ?

"In assembly, the teachers informed the pupils that Helmut, the German teacher's dachshund, had been poisoned : it was now all the teachers' responsibility to find the culprit."

Wassa problemo???

- or is it of Whisky wot you enquire????

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So, getting back to Waterstones, which of the following have either an apostrophe in the wrong place or no apostrophe where there ought to be one:

teachers … teacher's … teachers' ?

They're all correct in context, but the ellipsis should have spaces between the dots . . .

[jean]

Why?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"In assembly, the teachers informed the pupils that Helmut, the German teacher's dachshund, had been poisoned : it was now all the teachers' responsibility to find the culprit."

Wassa problemo???

- or is it of Whisky wot you enquire????

Teacher's Highland Cream whisky is rarely drunk by teachers, because teachers' preference is usually for Bell's.