Why is it...

[Gareth Hughes]

Excellent! I've kept that for brandishing at appropriate moments in the future.

I don't mean on this forum - just for pedantic friends (none of whom is as pedantic as I am!).

You might also like to ask them to punctuate the following:

“It is under these circumstances that we feel constrained to call upon you to come to our aid should a disturbance arise here the circumstances are so extreme that we cannot but believe that you and the men under you will not fail to come to the rescue of people who are so situated.”

Sent as a telegram in 1896, and not punctuated as its composer had envisaged, it led to the second Boer War.

 

[Penners]

Should it be "none of whom are" (or 'one of whom is)?

No, no sneering - but it's definitely "is".

"None" is a contraction of "not one". "One" is singular - hence "one is" and not "one are".

Told you I was pedantic!

 

[Penners]

"It is under these circumstances that we feel constrained to call upon you to come to our aid should a disturbance arise here the circumstances are so extreme that we cannot but believe that you and the men under you will not fail to come to the rescue of people who are so situated.”

I'm not saying that that sentence is not very incomprehensible, but I couldn't misunderstand it unless I failed to try.

 

[Stephen]

Just seen this thread and had a look a the site in question. I had heard of the site but never looked at it. I will now put a formal hat on and consider contacting them.

 

[Moo]

"None" is a contraction of "not one".

Thanks for that, Penners. I do like such logical rules - like the one that explains when an abbreviation should (and should not) have a full stop.

 

[Mark]

Just seen this thread and had a look a the site in question. I had heard of the site but never looked at it. I will now put a formal hat on and consider contacting them.

That's got me interested....

Can you tell us on what basis ? they show what looks like the RICS logo.

 

[Flyfisher]

Should it be "none of whom are" (or 'one of whom is)?

No, no sneering - but it's definitely "is".

"None" is a contraction of "not one". "One" is singular - hence "one is" and not "one are".

Told you I was pedantic!

Oh dear. I hesitated to reply, but here goes anyway

Surely 'none' is plural in the context your 'friends'? Thus, you referred to a number of friends (plural), none of whom (plural and therefore) 'are'. Also, 'none of whom are' seems to sound correct, to me at least.

This is posted out of curiosity rather than pedantry!

 

[Penners]

My answer is pure pedantry! But I assure you that it is as explained to Moo. "Not_one of my friends is...."

A parallel problem frequently occurs with collective nouns, nowadays, even (saints preserve us) in BBC news broadcasts. "The Government are...". "The police say..." and so on.

A collective noun is singular, hence "The Government is...".

I think I'm way beyond pedantry now, don't you?

 

[Nemesis]

Well, there is a regular poster on this site of whom it could be said he has not a clue about the 'normally accepted' use of the apostrophe. As Moo seems to have made it her life's work to 'out' these reprobates, I am sure she will now explain what she feels is the 'correct' usage.

Of course, none of this is set in stone. However, I feel sure that the person concerned will be so pleased that she has passed on her O level wisdom.

 

[Nemesis]

Of course, no-one is infallible.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh - for those interested, and I draw to the attention of the reader none of this is set in stone, it rather depends on the context.

A pronoun, which functions as a singular or plural.

 

[Moo]

Well, there is a regular poster on this site of whom it could be said he has not a clue about the 'normally accepted' use of the apostrophe. As Moo seems to have made it her life's work to 'out' these reprobates, I am sure she will now explain what she feels is the 'correct' usage.

Of course, none of this is set in stone. However, I feel sure that the person concerned will be so pleased that she has passed on her O level wisdom.

Nemesis, I asked a question, Penners answered it, and Flyfisher joined in. All in a spirit of good-humoured but genuine enquiry. As I explained in my little footnote, my grasp of grammar can be very shaky. I do, however, try to make any text that I write as clear and accurate as possible and to that end I welcome any help that's offered.

I'm not usually quick to take offence, but I really cannot see why you had to leap in with nasty little digs at me (what have I ever done to you?) that serve no useful purpose and are quite at odds with the spirit of the forum.

 

[Nemesis]

Ah - the spirit of the forum.

Right.

Think you maybe have missed something there Moo. Of course it's all fun and frolics - lest we forget.

Bet those you, in the past, asked to re-write their posts in order that they could be understood by you really felt it very lighthearted.

 

[Flyfisher]

I think I'm way beyond pedantry now, don't you?

Not at all, very educational - in an anorak-y sort of way :wink:

 

[Moo]

Ah - the spirit of the forum.

Right.

Think you maybe have missed something there Moo. Of course it's all fun and frolics - lest we forget.

Now where did I say anything about fun and frolics?

Bet those you, in the past, asked to re-write their posts in order that they could be understood by you really felt it very lighthearted.

But you soon convinced me of the error of my ways.
And in this instance I was asking for and receiving advice, not being critical.

And I still don't see what your remarks have contributed to the thread.

 

[Nemesis]

Oh, nothing at all, I'm sure.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Oooh best get me coat, my remarks usually contribute nowt.



I don't think Ev is guilty of it though.

 

[Penners]

Oooh best get me coat, my remarks usually contribute nowt.

That's certainly not true.