Grammar

Gilly · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:30

Lysander said:
The latter is correct. You're talking about many opinions of many people.

If those people are all the same people rather than multiple peoples then this is incorrect. The plural of person is people.

Lysander · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:31

mauron said:
This is getting complicated!

The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how apostrophes work. I used to have a boss who was very clever but he just couldn't get his head round them. They're actually very simple but a lot of people get flummoxed by them.

I've always thought we should have an apostrophe sticky here

dirtydog · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:32

Lysander said:
The problem is that a lot of people don't understand how apostrophes work. I used to have a boss who was very clever but he just couldn't get his head round them. They're actually very simple but a lot of people get flummoxed by them.

Including you, apparently

Gilly · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:34

Lysander · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:36

Gilly said:
If those people are all the same people rather than multiple peoples then this is incorrect. The plural of person is people.

I'm going to have to disagree here. If you're talking about people in general then you would be talking about many peoples. Therefore you would be saying that peoples' opinions are different rather than people's opinions, which assumes only the opinion of one people - therefore not everyone.

dirtydog said:
Including you, apparently

Saw that coming a mile off

Gilly · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:36

Lysander said:
I'm going to have to disagree here. If you're talking about people in general then you would be talking about many peoples. Therefore you would be saying that peoples' opinions are different rather than people's opinions, which assumes only the opinion of one people - therefore not everyone.

As I said:

Gilly said:
If those people are all the same people rather than multiple peoples then this is incorrect. The plural of person is people.

For instance, if the people you're discussing are all English then they are simply people, not peoples. If they are, using the earlier example, English and French, then you would be talking peoples, in which case the use would change.

Lysander said:
I'm going to have to disagree here.

I don't mind that

It does mean you're wrong, though

Lysander · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:45

Gilly said:
For instance, if the people you're discussing are all English then they are simply people, not peoples. If they are, using the earlier example, English and French, then you would be talking peoples, in which case the use would change.

If you used a phrase such as "people[']s['] opinions" surely you would want it to apply as broadly as possible? i.e. to all people and peoples! Why would you want it to apply to just one people? Wouldn't you want it to apply to everyone?

Gilly · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:46

Lysander said:
If you used a phrase such as "people[']s['] opinions" surely you would want it to apply as broadly as possible? i.e. to all people and peoples! Why would you want it to apply to just one people? Wouldn't you want it to apply to everyone?

It depends entirely on the context. If 'peoples' only ever applied to everyone then why would there be more than one way of using the word?

Your question strikes me as being rather strange. What you're asking is why a word exists, or at least why a usage of a word exists. The fact is that it does exist and can be used that way

Lysander · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:48

I think it's time to Ask Oxford [if I could be bothered]. I'm not quite ready for Ask Gilly yet.

dirtydog · 19 Jun 2007 at 13:49

Lysander said:
If you used a phrase such as "people[']s['] opinions" surely you would want it to apply as broadly as possible? i.e. to all people and peoples! Why would you want it to apply to just one people? Wouldn't you want it to apply to everyone?

I think you are a little confused actually. If you wanted the opinions of every person in the world you could simply say everyone's opinions. But asking for people's opinions does not imply only one set of people, eg. the English people.

Say hypothetically you could stand on top of the world and shout to everyone on earth, you would be able to say, hello I want to get people's opinions please... and it would include people of every country. Because in that context, people would be the plural of person.

surfsquid · 19 Jun 2007 at 14:52

mauron said:
Any English teachers out there? What's grammatically correct "Sunday 1st July at Wendy's and Derek's or "Sunday 1st July at Wendy and Derek's" It's on an invitation card and there's a bit of a debate going.

I would say that the first option would be correct if an event was being held at both Wendy's house and Derek's house if they live seperately, but the second option is better, assuming they live together.

jas72 · 19 Jun 2007 at 15:13

I simply change the sentence when I am not sure.

It is the joy of the English language that we can make it as easy or difficult to say the same sentence as we want depending on our mood.

Lysander · 19 Jun 2007 at 16:29

I actually think they're both correct and I'm right about everything.

platypus · 19 Jun 2007 at 16:32

I think we should hunt down and kill both Wendy and Derek for being incompetent invitation writers.

Who is with me? We could declare a Fatwah and everything.

NiccoLau · 19 Jun 2007 at 16:40

mauron said:
"Sunday 1st July at Wendy and Derek's"

elevenseventysix · 20 Jun 2007 at 09:10

Gilly said:
Are you asking whether grammar is necessary?

No - I'm asking if it is necessary in this particular instance.

The debate I'm bringing to the table Gilly is that if the meaning of the sentence is self obvious (and portraying the meaning of words is surely the functionality of a sentence) then is grammar of use in this instance?

This was always a good debate when I did English Language!

Arcade Fire · 20 Jun 2007 at 09:16

jackgnic said:
The second.

But if you know the full meaning of the sentence - regardless of grammar -then the debate surely is whether grammar is necessary in this instance.

Grammar is the attempt to make static something which is inherently dynamic. Languages are in a constant process of change; works written only fifty years ago look strange to our eyes. The language that your children speak will be different to the language that you speak.

Grammar is the futile attempt to axiomatize language by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. A writer should care about only two things: beauty, and clarity. If they are increased by the use of correct grammar, then so be it. If correct grammar is detrimental to the beauty and clarity of your writing then it should be discarded.

platypus · 20 Jun 2007 at 09:22

Arcade Fire said:
axiomatize

Speaking of which, you can perform axiomatization, but you can't axiomatize something!

elevenseventysix · 20 Jun 2007 at 09:22

Arcade Fire said:
Grammar is the attempt to make static something which is inherently dynamic. Languages are in a constant process of change; works written only fifty years ago look strange to our eyes. The language that your children speak will be different to the language that you speak.

Grammar is the futile attempt to axiomatize language by people who have nothing better to do with their lives. A writer should care about only two things: beauty, and clarity. If they are increased by the use of correct grammar, then so be it. If correct grammar is detrimental to the beauty and clarity of your writing then it should be discarded.

Ya know, I've never found anybody else who actually seems to agree with me that language is constantly changing and cannot/should not be stopped - it was never stopped in the past, so why do we have to begin very laborious and uncreative formalisation now? I'm not disagreeing with grammar totally but imho we have to let our language flourish and continue to evolve naturally.

Grammar

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina

Capodecina