It's Lens

Pat wrote:

But I guess the whole thing is in the category of "who cares?".

I "guess" that this is not true for you...

In article . com, Pat
writes
On Jan 10, 4:56 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:
The word is lens: there is no trailing E.

Second off, shouldn't it be, " The word is lens: There is no trailing
E"?

No; colons (and semicolons) divide a sentence rather than end it.

David
--
David Littlewood

David Littlewood wrote:
In article . com, Pat
writes

On Jan 10, 4:56 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:

The word is lens: there is no trailing E.

Second off, shouldn't it be, " The word is lens: There is no trailing
E"?

No; colons (and semicolons) divide a sentence rather than end it.



This is an old cultural thing. I have one university professor who won't
write an article for me without using caps after colons, which I then
remove, not because they are wrong (they do appear in 200 year old
printing) but because they look ugly. Technically, a colon requires a
complete second sentence which should mirror the structure of the first
sentence: practically, this rarely happens.

Thing to do now is try them Yanks on the use of 'which' as opposed to
'that'. I have too many whiches in my writing for good American copy
editors to stomach. Or should that be whichs?

Anyone who suggests "which's" can enjoy swimming in the cesspit into
which I dump journos who write DSLR's instead of DSLRs.

David

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
David Littlewood wrote:
In article . com, Pat
writes

On Jan 10, 4:56 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:

The word is lens: there is no trailing E.

Second off, shouldn't it be, " The word is lens: There is no trailing
E"?

No; colons (and semicolons) divide a sentence rather than end it.



This is an old cultural thing. I have one university professor who won't
write an article for me without using caps after colons, which I then
remove, not because they are wrong (they do appear in 200 year old
printing) but because they look ugly. Technically, a colon requires a
complete second sentence which should mirror the structure of the first
sentence: practically, this rarely happens.

Thing to do now is try them Yanks on the use of 'which' as opposed to
'that'. I have too many whiches in my writing for good American copy
editors to stomach. Or should that be whichs?

How about witches?

In article , David Kilpatrick
writes
David Littlewood wrote:
In article . com,
Pat writes

On Jan 10, 4:56 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:

The word is lens: there is no trailing E.

Second off, shouldn't it be, " The word is lens: There is no trailing
E"?

No; colons (and semicolons) divide a sentence rather than end it.



This is an old cultural thing. I have one university professor who
won't write an article for me without using caps after colons, which I
then remove, not because they are wrong (they do appear in 200 year old
printing) but because they look ugly. Technically, a colon requires a
complete second sentence which should mirror the structure of the first
sentence: practically, this rarely happens.

I don't know why your professor feels this is correct; I have never seen
it suggested by any reputable text that a colon marks the end of a
sentence. A check in the 3 main UK English dictionaries, in Fowler, and
in Gowers, all confirm the view that it is used to introduce a list, or
to mark distinct clauses within a sentence, rather than to end one
sentence and begin another. Incidentally, the second of those two uses
meets your requirement (a separate clause, by definition, must include a
verb) at least to some extent: though I would not say it needs to mirror
the structure exactly. The first use I mentioned does not, of course,
impose any such requirement.

Thing to do now is try them Yanks on the use of 'which' as opposed to
'that'. I have too many whiches in my writing for good American copy
editors to stomach. Or should that be whichs?

If you made it "witches" it would probably meet with enthusiastic
welcome. ("Witch DSLR - Willow chooses her favorites".

Anyone who suggests "which's" can enjoy swimming in the cesspit into
which I dump journos who write DSLR's instead of DSLRs.

Agreed; I'm with you (and Lynne Truss) on this one.

David
--
David Littlewood

William Graham wrote:
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
David Littlewood wrote:
In article . com, Pat
writes

On Jan 10, 4:56 pm, Richard Polhill
wrote:

The word is lens: there is no trailing E.

Second off, shouldn't it be, " The word is lens: There is no trailing
E"?

No; colons (and semicolons) divide a sentence rather than end it.


This is an old cultural thing. I have one university professor who won't
write an article for me without using caps after colons, which I then
remove, not because they are wrong (they do appear in 200 year old
printing) but because they look ugly. Technically, a colon requires a
complete second sentence which should mirror the structure of the first
sentence: practically, this rarely happens.

Thing to do now is try them Yanks on the use of 'which' as opposed to
'that'. I have too many whiches in my writing for good American copy
editors to stomach. Or should that be whichs?

How about witches?



They should be burned at the steak..errr...stick...cough..cough..





mike

Message-ID: from David
Kilpatrick contained the following:

Thing to do now is try them Yanks on the use of 'which' as opposed to
'that'. I have too many whiches in my writing for good American copy
editors to stomach. Or should that be whichs?

Yes I am always surprised how the grammar checker objects to my
perfectly valid use of the word.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

"Skip" wrote in message
...
Abivalent is to bivalent, as amoral is to moral...
;-)
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

"Abivalent" is not ambiguous in that statement.

He could have used "ambiguous", and that wouldn't be abivalent either.

Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, and therefore
ambiguous is abivalent and abivalent is abiguous, when used properly,
as he did.

Got that?


I have never seen the word "abivalent" before. What does it mean?

Or did you intend to type "ambivalent"?





Only abiverts are abivalent.


Patrick