[bulka[_2_]]

I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)

Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
right, or I just don't get the point.

r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
Recipie File be kept private"?

bulka

[Andy[_15_]]

bulka said...

> I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
> eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
> myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> bulka


The only social networking I've done is a couple of hobby-related web
forums and rfc combined with it's chat channel.

The buddy system served it's purpose at YMCA camp as a kid. It's doesn't
interest me anymore. Most of it's unbelievable I imagine.

I find comfort in keeping my private life close to the vest.

OB Food: Four White Castle hamburgers with guacamole.

Andy

[Kris[_1_]]

On Mar 24, 5:42*pm, bulka > wrote:
> I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. *(The
> eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> Anyways - are you a member? *I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> r.f.c I understand. *But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> your on-line buddies are? *Why would I want to post that stuff about
> myself? *Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> bulka

I have been a registered Epicurious userfor years, but I don't really
do any forums. The most I do is write reviews for recipes I've tried.
I keep my profile pretty generic except for my homeown and gender.

By the way, what the heck kind of Skordalia recipe did you have that
used eggplant? The main vegetable should be potatoes!

Kris

[Van[_2_]]

"bulka" > wrote in message
...
>I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
> eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
> myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> bulka

The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place or
they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".

Van

[bulka[_2_]]

"This member has requested that their (sic)
> > Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> > bulka
>
> The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place or
> they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>
> Van

"Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
offending a sensitive soul.

"This member is among those who choose to keep their . . ." That
would work.

Kinda a pet peeve.

bulka

[bulka[_2_]]

On Mar 24, 6:10 pm, Kris > wrote:

>
> By the way, what the heck kind of Skordalia recipe did you have that
> used eggplant? The main vegetable should be potatoes!
>
> Kris

No, this was a layered concoction, with fried eggplant, skordalia,
oven-dried tomato.

His skordalia, though - whipping cream, butter, sour cream? No.

As I said on the recipie response page, his is garlic flavored mashed
potatoes, skordalia a starch/oil-based vehicle for garlic.

In a bit, I'll post his and mine and you can judge.

Bulka

[Kris[_1_]]

On Mar 24, 8:05*pm, bulka > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:10 pm, Kris > wrote:
>
>
>
> > By the way, what the heck kind of Skordalia recipe did you have that
> > used eggplant? The main vegetable should be potatoes!
>
> > Kris
>
> No, this was a layered concoction, with fried eggplant, skordalia,
> oven-dried tomato.
>
> His skordalia, though - whipping cream, butter, sour cream? *No.
>
> As I said on the recipie response page, his is garlic flavored mashed
> potatoes, skordalia a starch/oil-based vehicle for garlic.
>
> In a bit, I'll post his and mine and you can judge.
>
> Bulka

I'll be interested to see the. Thanks,

Kris

[Dan Abel]

In article
>,
bulka > wrote:


> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> Recipie File be kept private"?

That's funny. I was understanding at first, until you explained it! I
thought the (sic) referred to the word "recipie", which does not exist
in my dictionary. My dictionary says that "their" can be used instead
of his or hers when the sex is unknown.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT), bulka wrote:

> I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
> eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
> myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> bulka

i thought you just misplaced your '(sic)' instead of putting it after
'recipies.'

your pal,
blake

[bulka[_2_]]

On Mar 25, 9:33 am, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT), bulka wrote:
> > I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> > comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
> > eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> > Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> > Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> > like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> > right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> > r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> > your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
> > myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> > bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> > Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> > bulka
>
> i thought you just misplaced your '(sic)' instead of putting it after
> 'recipies.'
>
> your pal,
> blake

OK, you got me. Sometimes it's my spelling, sometimes typpiong. And
I easilly forgive that it others. I proof and spellcheck my emails,
but here, or in a chat, I've learned to accept approximate spellings
or almost the right word. Creative diction. Sentence fragments.

It is the intentional misuse of language that annoys me.
And the whipping cream in the skordalia.

B

[Default User]

bulka wrote:

> "This member has requested that their (sic)
> > > Recipie File be kept private"?
> >
> > > bulka
> >
> > The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place
> > or they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".

> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
> offending a sensitive soul.

This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard part of
English for hundreds of years.




Brian

--
Day 50 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

[James Silverton[_2_]]

Default wrote on 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT:

>> "This member has requested that their (sic)
> > >> Recipie File be kept private"?
> >>
> > >> bulka
> >>
> >> The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as
> >> a place or they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".

>> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This
>> member has requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is
>> a PC evasion/ convolution/malformation - better to abuse the
>> language than risk offending a sensitive soul.

> This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard
> part of English for hundreds of years.

True enough; I only saw bulka in quotation so I don't know where they
are posting from but the London Times uses singular they/their as a
matter of course.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

[Nancy2]

On Mar 24, 6:12*pm, "Van" > wrote:
> "bulka" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
> > comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. *(The
> > eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
> > Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>
> > Anyways - are you a member? *I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
> > like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
> > right, or I just don't get the point.
>
> > r.f.c I understand. *But why would I care about your "profile" or who
> > your on-line buddies are? *Why would I want to post that stuff about
> > myself? *Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
> > bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
> > Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> > bulka
>
> The use of 'their" is correct. *It's possive. *Not THERE as a place or
> they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>
> Van- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When you post a correction to someone's language use, you should make
sure your post is error free.

What is "possive?" Did you mean, perhaps, possessive?

N.

[Damsel in dis Dress[_6_]]

On 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>bulka wrote:
>
>> "This member has requested that their (sic)
>> > > Recipie File be kept private"?
>> >
>> > > bulka
>> >
>> > The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place
>> > or they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>
>> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
>> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
>> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
>> offending a sensitive soul.
>
>This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard part of
>English for hundreds of years.

It's common to use, "their," when the gender of the person being
discussed is uncertain.

Pat

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

[Default User]

James Silverton wrote:

> Default wrote on 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT:
> > bulka wrote:

> > > "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This
> > > member has requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is
> > > a PC evasion/ convolution/malformation - better to abuse the
> > > language than risk offending a sensitive soul.
>
> > This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard
> > part of English for hundreds of years.
>
> True enough; I only saw bulka in quotation so I don't know where they
> are posting from . . .

Difficult to say, gmail/Google Groups. Perhaps why you didn't see the
original.




Brian (gives the secret AUE handshake)

--
Day 50 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

[Victor Sack[_1_]]

bulka > wrote:

> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
> offending a sensitive soul.

It is not really a particular peeve of mine and I've even been known to
use "their" in this way myself, but you are correct. Quoting (again)
from the invaluable _Usage and Abusage_ by the immortal Eric Partridge:

<quote>
*their, them, they* for singular _he or she, his or her_. 'It was rather
like a jig-saw puzzle to which everyone contributed their own bit of
knowledge', Agatha Christie, _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_. An error
commonly found in both speech and writing, and arising from our lack of
a relative pronoun meaning _his-or-her_.
'I wore the fillet of the Golden Cobra, which could only be worn by
one who had overthrown the cobra of the seventh ordeal, and in so doing
had added strength to their will' (Joan Grant, _Winged Pharaoh_). In
such cases the right pronoun is 'his', unless a woman is clearly
referred to.
</quote>

ObFood: Smoked salmon sandwiches, from _The London Ritz Book of
Afternoon Tea_ by Helen Simpson (the recipe is formatted, so use a
monospaced font to read it).

Victor

The Ritz's Special Smoked Salmon Sandwiches

---Metric/Imperial--- : ---Cup Measures---

100 g/4 oz smoked | 1/4 lb smoked salmon
salmon offcuts | trimmings
|
150 ml /1/4 pint single | 1 1/3 cups heavy cream
cream |
|
25 ml/1 fl oz whisky | 2 tbsp whisky
|
2.5 ml/1/2 tsp white | 1/2 tsp white pepper, plus
pepper, plus extra | extra
|
1.25 ml/1/4 tsp grated | 1/4 tsp grated nutmeg
nutmeg |
|
150 ml/1/4 pint double |
cream |
|
brown bread-and-butter | brown bread-and-butter
|
50 g/2 oz slice smoked | 2 oz slice smoked
salmon, cut wafer thin | salmon, cut wafer thin
|
lemon wedge, to serve | lemon wedge, to serve


Mince or chop the smoked salmon very finely. Stir in the single or 2/3
cup of heavy cream, and coax the mixture through a sieve or strainer
using the back of a wooden spoon. Beat in the whisky, pepper and
nutmeg. Chill.
Whip the double or remaining heavy cream until stiff, and fold into
the chilled mixture, a little at a time. Spread slices of the brown
bread-and-butter with the mixture, then carefully arrange wafers of
smoked salmon across this. Season with a little freshly ground white
pepper. Press slices of buttered brown bread on top and remove the
crusts. Cover the sandwiches with a clean cloth which has been wrung
out in cold water until you are ready to serve them. Serve with a wedge
of lemon.
This makes an exceptionally moist delicious sandwich.

[sf[_9_]]

On 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>bulka wrote:
>
>> "This member has requested that their (sic)
>> > > Recipie File be kept private"?
>> >
>> > > bulka
>> >
>> > The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place
>> > or they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>
>> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
>> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
>> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
>> offending a sensitive soul.
>
>This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard part of
>English for hundreds of years.
>
I doubt hundreds. In any case, I agree with bulka. "Their" is
plural, use the masculine form if you don't know a specific gender.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
> >bulka wrote:
> >
> >> "This member has requested that their (sic)

> >> "Their" is plural.
> >This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard part of
> >English for hundreds of years.
> >
> I doubt hundreds. In any case, I agree with bulka. "Their" is
> plural, use the masculine form if you don't know a specific gender.

My dictionary still disagrees:

"The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a
singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used
since at least the 16th century."

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:46:49 -0700 (PDT), bulka wrote:

> On Mar 25, 9:33 am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT), bulka wrote:
>>> I joined the epicurious "community" the other day because I had to
>>> comment (tactfully, I think) on a horrible skordalia recipe. (The
>>> eggplant discussion led me to a recipie search, led me to this thing.
>>> Reminded, though, I made my much better version.)
>>
>>> Anyways - are you a member? I spent a few minutes poking around, and,
>>> like every other networking site I've visited, either I'm not doing it
>>> right, or I just don't get the point.
>>
>>> r.f.c I understand. But why would I care about your "profile" or who
>>> your on-line buddies are? Why would I want to post that stuff about
>>> myself? Why, if you are going to do this, does every link I click
>>> bring up something like "This member has requested that their (sic)
>>> Recipie File be kept private"?
>>
>>> bulka
>>
>> i thought you just misplaced your '(sic)' instead of putting it after
>> 'recipies.'
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> OK, you got me. Sometimes it's my spelling, sometimes typpiong. And
> I easilly forgive that it others. I proof and spellcheck my emails,
> but here, or in a chat, I've learned to accept approximate spellings
> or almost the right word. Creative diction. Sentence fragments.
>
> It is the intentional misuse of language that annoys me.
> And the whipping cream in the skordalia.
>
> B

not a criticism. i guess the use of 'their' as a possessive for a murky
antecedent doesn't bother me that much, since that didn't strike me.

your pal,
blake

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:06:24 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2 wrote:

> On Mar 24, 6:12*pm, "Van" > wrote:

>>
>> The use of 'their" is correct. *It's possive. *Not THERE as a place or
>> they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>>
>> Van- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> When you post a correction to someone's language use, you should make
> sure your post is error free.

but if you fail to make an error in a grammar nag, you will anger the
usenet gods and they will **** all over your posts for the rest of your
natural life.

your pal,
elwyn

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:25:01 +0100, Victor Sack wrote:

> bulka > wrote:
>
>> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
>> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
>> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
>> offending a sensitive soul.
>
> It is not really a particular peeve of mine and I've even been known to
> use "their" in this way myself, but you are correct. Quoting (again)
> from the invaluable _Usage and Abusage_ by the immortal Eric Partridge:
>
> <quote>
> *their, them, they* for singular _he or she, his or her_. 'It was rather
> like a jig-saw puzzle to which everyone contributed their own bit of
> knowledge', Agatha Christie, _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_. An error
> commonly found in both speech and writing, and arising from our lack of
> a relative pronoun meaning _his-or-her_.
> 'I wore the fillet of the Golden Cobra, which could only be worn by
> one who had overthrown the cobra of the seventh ordeal, and in so doing
> had added strength to their will' (Joan Grant, _Winged Pharaoh_). In
> such cases the right pronoun is 'his', unless a woman is clearly
> referred to.
> </quote>
>

all that may be true, but i can't help feeling that that particular train
has left the station.

after reading probably too much crap on the net, i would personally be
satisfied if people could reliably distinguish 'loose' from 'lose.'

your pal,
blake

[sf[_9_]]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:28:44 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On 25 Mar 2009 16:29:34 GMT, "Default User" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >bulka wrote:
>> >
>> >> "This member has requested that their (sic)
>
>> >> "Their" is plural.
>> >This is not correct. The singular "their" has been a standard part of
>> >English for hundreds of years.
>> >
>> I doubt hundreds. In any case, I agree with bulka. "Their" is
>> plural, use the masculine form if you don't know a specific gender.
>
>My dictionary still disagrees:
>
>"The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a
>singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex has been used
>since at least the 16th century."

So, bad grammar is ok because it's been in use since the 16th
century???? Dictionaries only report usage. "Their" as a singular
is *wrong*, no matter how many centuries is has been in "common use".
Don't act like you were brought up in a barn.

As Always,



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

[Goro]

On Mar 24, 4:51*pm, bulka > wrote:
> "This member has requested that their (sic)
>
> > > Recipie File be kept private"?
>
> > > bulka
>
> > The use of 'their" is correct. *It's possive. *Not THERE as a place or
> > they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>
> > Van
>
> "Their" is plural. *The proper construction would be "This member has
> requested that his . . " *In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
> offending a sensitive soul.
>
> "This member is among those who choose to keep their . . ." *That
> would work.
>
> Kinda a pet peeve.
>
> bulka

heh. i thot it was a misplaced "(sic)" for the "Recipie"

-goro-

[Victor Sack[_1_]]

blake murphy > wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:25:01 +0100, Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > It is not really a particular peeve of mine and I've even been known to
> > use "their" in this way myself, but you are correct. Quoting (again)
> > from the invaluable _Usage and Abusage_ by the immortal Eric Partridge:
> >
> > <quote>
> > *their, them, they* for singular _he or she, his or her_. 'It was rather
> > like a jig-saw puzzle to which everyone contributed their own bit of
> > knowledge', Agatha Christie, _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_. An error
> > commonly found in both speech and writing, and arising from our lack of
> > a relative pronoun meaning _his-or-her_.
> > 'I wore the fillet of the Golden Cobra, which could only be worn by
> > one who had overthrown the cobra of the seventh ordeal, and in so doing
> > had added strength to their will' (Joan Grant, _Winged Pharaoh_). In
> > such cases the right pronoun is 'his', unless a woman is clearly
> > referred to.
> > </quote>
>
> all that may be true, but i can't help feeling that that particular train
> has left the station.

As far as I am concerned, bad grammar is bad grammar, no matter how many
people accept it as given, nor how long it has been in use.

> after reading probably too much crap on the net, i would personally be
> satisfied if people could reliably distinguish 'loose' from 'lose.'

Many people are way too loose to do that; many others are hopelessly
lost.

It's been just a few months since I posted a list of bad usage examples
I regularly notice on this newsgroup. It is amusing that at least some
of them can be seen most every day.

"that" vs. "who"
"who" vs. "whom"
"who's" vs. "whose"
"which" vs. "who"
"majority" vs. "most", "much" etc.
"averse" vs. "adverse"
"off of" (used together)
"I" vs. "me"
"their" vs. "his" (as in "to each their own")
"invite" vs. "invitation"

Victor

[Damsel in dis Dress[_6_]]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:57:09 +0100, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>"who" vs. "whom"

I have no clue when "whom" should be used, so I don't use it. I know
when "shall" should be used, but the word sounds stuffy, so I rarely
use that, either. I know that my writing must make a lot of people
cringe, but I figure I'll just e-mail them a dose of Klonopin, and
they'll get over it. LOL!

Carol

--
Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply.

[Bobo Bonobo®]

On Mar 27, 5:57*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
> blake murphy > wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:25:01 +0100, Victor Sack wrote:
>
> > > It is not really a particular peeve of mine and I've even been known to
> > > use "their" in this way myself, but you are correct. *Quoting (again)
> > > from the invaluable _Usage and Abusage_ by the immortal Eric Partridge:
>
> > > <quote>
> > > *their, them, they* for singular _he or she, his or her_. 'It was rather
> > > like a jig-saw puzzle to which everyone contributed their own bit of
> > > knowledge', Agatha Christie, _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_. *An error
> > > commonly found in both speech and writing, and arising from our lack of
> > > a relative pronoun meaning _his-or-her_.
> > > * *'I wore the fillet of the Golden Cobra, which could only be worn by
> > > one who had overthrown the cobra of the seventh ordeal, and in so doing
> > > had added strength to their will' (Joan Grant, _Winged Pharaoh_). *In
> > > such cases the right pronoun is 'his', unless a woman is clearly
> > > referred to.
> > > </quote>
>
> > all that may be true, but i can't help feeling that that particular train
> > has left the station.
>
> As far as I am concerned, bad grammar is bad grammar, no matter how many
> people accept it as given, nor how long it has been in use.
>
> > after reading probably too much crap on the net, i would personally be
> > satisfied if people could reliably distinguish 'loose' from 'lose.'
>
> Many people are way too loose to do that; many others are hopelessly
> lost.
>
> It's been just a few months since I posted a list of bad usage examples
> I regularly notice on this newsgroup. *It is amusing that at least some
> of them can be seen most every day.
>
> "that" vs. "who"
> "who" vs. "whom"
> "who's" vs. "whose"
> "which" vs. "who"
> "majority" vs. "most", "much" etc.

That one could be a legit shift in usage. "A majority of" is in
common usage, however much it might rub fuddy duddies like us the
wrong way.

> "averse" vs. "adverse"
> "off of" (used together)

Again, this is pretty common, as in, I got it off of r.f.cooking.
True, a better choice would be "from."

> "I" vs. "me"
> "their" vs. "his" (as in "to each their own")

"Their" is used as a non-gender specific pronoun. I understand that
it's using a plural to denote a singular, but the alternative is, "his
or her." Using "his" is considered by some to be sexist. To each
*one's* own sounds funny. We have yet to settle upon gender neutral
pronouns and adjectives.

> "invite" vs. "invitation"

"Invite" is also used as a shortening of invitation. Remember the
Mott the Hoople song, The Golden Age of Rock'n Roll?

You'd be a good candidate for membership in POEM, the Professional
Organization of English Majors (a fictitious entity in the world of G.
Keillor). Heck, I might too.

Language evolves, and English ain't French. Yesterday, I was teaching
my 7 YO about "I" and "me," and their proper usage. If he says, "Mama
and me," I always correct him. Also, " Me and Mama," when used in the
subject, as in "Me and Mama planted the rosemary," is incorrect, just
as, "Me planted the rosemary," would be.

Maybe we should just *let it go*. We're free to let bad grammar serve
as an indicator of laziness and/or lack of native intelligence, and to
regard some posts as being potentially less valid, and I do so. My
biggest pet peeve in writing is the misuse of the apostrophe. As FZ
said, "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe."
>
> Victor

--Bryan

[Jean B.[_1_]]

Goro wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:51 pm, bulka > wrote:
>> "This member has requested that their (sic)
>>
>>>> Recipie File be kept private"?
>>>> bulka
>>> The use of 'their" is correct. It's possive. Not THERE as a place or
>>> they're, contraction for "THEY ARE".
>>> Van
>> "Their" is plural. The proper construction would be "This member has
>> requested that his . . " In this case, "their" is a PC evasion/
>> convolution/malformation - better to abuse the language than risk
>> offending a sensitive soul.
>>
>> "This member is among those who choose to keep their . . ." That
>> would work.
>>
>> Kinda a pet peeve.
>>
>> bulka
>
> heh. i thot it was a misplaced "(sic)" for the "Recipie"
>
> -goro-

I thought the same.

--
Jean B.

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:57:09 +0100, Victor Sack wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:25:01 +0100, Victor Sack wrote:
>>>
>>> It is not really a particular peeve of mine and I've even been known to
>>> use "their" in this way myself, but you are correct. Quoting (again)
>>> from the invaluable _Usage and Abusage_ by the immortal Eric Partridge:
>>>
>>> <quote>
>>> *their, them, they* for singular _he or she, his or her_. 'It was rather
>>> like a jig-saw puzzle to which everyone contributed their own bit of
>>> knowledge', Agatha Christie, _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_. An error
>>> commonly found in both speech and writing, and arising from our lack of
>>> a relative pronoun meaning _his-or-her_.
>>> 'I wore the fillet of the Golden Cobra, which could only be worn by
>>> one who had overthrown the cobra of the seventh ordeal, and in so doing
>>> had added strength to their will' (Joan Grant, _Winged Pharaoh_). In
>>> such cases the right pronoun is 'his', unless a woman is clearly
>>> referred to.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> all that may be true, but i can't help feeling that that particular train
>> has left the station.
>
> As far as I am concerned, bad grammar is bad grammar, no matter how many
> people accept it as given, nor how long it has been in use.
>
>> after reading probably too much crap on the net, i would personally be
>> satisfied if people could reliably distinguish 'loose' from 'lose.'
>
> Many people are way too loose to do that; many others are hopelessly
> lost.
>
> It's been just a few months since I posted a list of bad usage examples
> I regularly notice on this newsgroup. It is amusing that at least some
> of them can be seen most every day.
>
> "that" vs. "who"
> "who" vs. "whom"
> "who's" vs. "whose"
> "which" vs. "who"
> "majority" vs. "most", "much" etc.
> "averse" vs. "adverse"
> "off of" (used together)
> "I" vs. "me"
> "their" vs. "his" (as in "to each their own")
> "invite" vs. "invitation"
>
> Victor

it's my theory that you become a good speller by reading a lot. read a lot
on the web, though, and your skills may actually deteriorate.

your pal,
blake

[Kathleen[_4_]]

blake murphy wrote:


>
> it's my theory that you become a good speller by reading a lot.

Absolutely. I've always been a voracious reader. It's improved my
spelling, my vocabulary, and it's made me a better writer.

I substitute teach and have, on occasion, been asked, "Why do you use
such weird words?"

My answer usually runs along the lines of:

Words draw a picture in your mind. Having a big vocabulary is like
having the giant box of 128 crayons, instead of the pack of 8 fat ones.

If there's a word I know that means *exactly* what I'm trying to say,
why not use that word, instead of a whole string of sentences that maybe
only get me part of the way there? If you don't understand what I mean,
ask and I'll be happy to explain it to you. And you get to add a new
crayon to your box.

[Victor Sack[_1_]]

Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:

> On Mar 27, 5:57*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:

> > "majority" vs. "most", "much" etc.
>
> That one could be a legit shift in usage. "A majority of" is in
> common usage, however much it might rub fuddy duddies like us the
> wrong way.

I do not think there is any shift. It is the old "discrete" vs.
"continuous" thing. It is very similar to confusing "less" with "fewer"
and it appears to be getting almost as common.

> Maybe we should just *let it go*.

Oh, it does not bug me at all. It happens to be particularly amusing to
me, because English is not my native language and, though my own grammar
errors are usually much more serious, I have somewhow always managed to
avoid these particular traps with no effort at all.

ObFood: Beetroot risotto. The recipe is by Jennifer Paterson, which was
published in The Spectator issue of 10 February, 1990. In her article,
she referred to it as highly original, amazing to behold and most
delicious. My beloved beet-loving Barbabietola Schaller is bound to be
particularly delighted.

Victor

Ruby red risotto

3 medium-size cooked beetroots
8 fluid oz milk
1 1/2 pints chicken or veal stock
olive oil
butter
1 medium-size onion
5 fluid oz red or white wine
1/2 lb arborio rice
fresh parmesan cheese

Risotto is not a pilaf or anything to do with the dishes requiring that
every grain of rice should be separate, it is therefore essential to use
the arborio rice which has plump, succulent and absorbent grains. Buy
the white grains, never the yellowish ones.
Put the beetroots and the milk in a blender, whizz until smooth.
Have the stock heating in a pouring saucepan. In another saucepan put
about two tablespoons of olive oil and an ounce of butter to melt. Peel
and chop the onion very finely, add to the oil and cook gently until
golden but not brown. Stir in the rice until it is well impregnated
with oil and butter, pour in the wine and let it continue to cook gently
until absorbed. Now add a pint of stock, cup by cup. Let it cook and
absorb, but keep your eye on it, giving the odd stir, pour in the
beetroot mixture and season with salt and freshly ground pepper. At the
end of the cooking, which will be about 20 minutes, stir continuously to
prevent sticking to the bottom of the pan and add the last of the stock
if necessary. The rice should be a creamy consistency like a bowl of
porridge but still have a slight bite to it. Add a tablespoon of
freshly grated parmesan cheese, turn off the heat and let it rest for a
couple of minutes, when it will be 'ben mantecatto' as the Italians put
it. This amount would be enough for four as a first course.

[blake murphy[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:06:35 +0200, Victor Sack wrote:

> Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 27, 5:57*pm, (Victor Sack) wrote:
>
>>> "majority" vs. "most", "much" etc.
>>
>> That one could be a legit shift in usage. "A majority of" is in
>> common usage, however much it might rub fuddy duddies like us the
>> wrong way.
>
> I do not think there is any shift. It is the old "discrete" vs.
> "continuous" thing. It is very similar to confusing "less" with "fewer"
> and it appears to be getting almost as common.
>
>> Maybe we should just *let it go*.
>
> Oh, it does not bug me at all. It happens to be particularly amusing to
> me, because English is not my native language and, though my own grammar
> errors are usually much more serious, I have somewhow always managed to
> avoid these particular traps with no effort at all.
>

if it's any consolation to you, victor, this sloppy american never would
have guessed you weren't a native english speaker.

your pal,
blake

[Victor Sack[_1_]]

blake murphy > wrote:

> if it's any consolation to you, victor, this sloppy american never would
> have guessed you weren't a native english speaker.

It is very nice of you to say this. My English may be passable for a
"foreigner", but not for a native speaker. I am all too aware of its
shortcomings.

ObFood: Here is an amusing quotation found in 'A Book of Mediterranean
Food' by Elizabeth David.

Victor

A Venetian Breakfast

'Begin with a Vermouth Amaro in lieu of a cocktail. For hors d'oeuvre
have some small crabs cold, mashed up with sauce tartare and a slice or
two of _prosciutto crudo_ (raw ham), cut as thin as cigarette paper.
After this a steaming risotto with _scampi_ (somewhat resembling
gigantic prawns), some cutlets done in the Bologna style, a thin slice
of ham on top and hot parmesan and grated white truffles and _fegato
alla veneziana_ complete the repast except for a slice of _strachino_
cheese. A bottle of Val Policella is exactly suited for this kind of
repast and a glass of fine Champagne and of ruby-coloured Alkermes for
the lady, if your wife accompanies you, make a good ending.
'The Maître d'Hôtel will be interested in you directly he finds that
you know how a man should breakfast.'

'The Gourmet Guide to Europe'
by Lt-Col Newnham-Davis and Algernon *******, 1903