I love and enjoy biking to Dal every morning. I love the fresh air in my face, the sing of the birds, the happy people walking around. Everything is so perfect until I pass by a certain corner, where one of the houses looks like a garbage dump. There’s been a TV on the grass for weeks! plus old couches, garbage, etc. Sometimes, there is even litter across the sidewalk! Please, whomever who lives there, stop being the dirty and ugly spot in all Dal campus. —angry biker
This article appears in Jul 25-31, 2013.
It’s probably left over from when some less enlightened students departed after year end, and mater and pater weren’t around to do the equivalent of wipe their fucking arses for them.
You’re OCD
You’re Daniel Abraham
That sounds like my yard.
“I really enjoy my morning commute and deign to ride my royal ass by your house. And your personal life makes it less enjoyable. please alter your lifestyle so the two seconds a day i am aware of your existence is in better alignment with my personal wants.”
What’s next op? “I do not like yellow lines in the street. I prefer pink. Please change them immediately.”?
This isn’t your fucking personal kingdom op. Nobody is worried about fabricating the entire universe around meeting your personal wants and demands.
“Please, whomever who lives there, stop being the dirty and ugly spot in all Dal campus.” angry biker
Yes, that would be the Sigma Chi frat house. A bunch of beer-swilling low-lifes.
You’re not a student of English at Dal by any chance are you? No, I didn’t think so. Your phrase “whomever whom” is not only doubly incorrect grammatically speaking but is also grating to the cultured mind. Try “whoever.” That should do the trick. Also putting the word “the” between “all” and “Dal” wouldn’t hurt either. Otherwise it sounds like pidgin English.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
put on your big girl panties and call 311 with the address so bylaw can ensure the property owner cleans it up if you are so offended
Lolz you must REALLY enjoy the dirty hippie yurt and the busted bookcase and chairs outside the SUB during o week, OB.
stepford bitch
MM, I think they might be a philosophy professor.
A professor of philosophy, I think, they may be.
Of Philosophy, I think, they may be a professor.
They may, I think, be a professor of philosophy.
May they be a philosophy professor? I think.
OP. Interesting. Why do you not hate and dread your bike ride to Dal each morning? Why do you not loathe the prospect of fresh air, the song of the birds and the happy people who walk so unhurriedly past on a warm summers day as a gentile breeze caresses their delicate features so tenderly? WHY, I ask, is everything so ‘perfect’ until you pass a certain corner where you behold such an untended, forsaken, heap of a domicile? Why not, then, does the sight of litter and discarded television sets inspire within you feelings of great beauty and intellectual musings? I want you to think about that, OP. I want us all to think about that a little bit sometimes. Aren’t we all just ugly houses among the vibrant cityscape of life? Aren’t we all just long forgotten television sets left to the elements in hopes that one day we will find true love?
RSVP
: HoistThatRag (07/37, 10:58PM)
“MM, I think they might be a philosophy professor.”
I had difficulty with this one, Rag. While “they” is clearly in the plural, ” philosophy professor” is clearly in the singular. The problem then arises as to how an equivalency is to be constructed. One thinks of God (singular) as the embodiment of the three persons (the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost) which is clearly plural. Is this what you had in mind? Was your subtext theological?
In the absence of such a subtext the concept of numerical reference, while insignificant in itself, does demand equivalence in those cases where the reference is to an identity. Failure to observe this fundamental injunction results in incoherence.
Of course, the hour was late and you might have been pissed.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Take a different route.
Problem solved
Nope, not pissed, I just stay up late. I only drink on Friday/Saturday
Once more unto the breach MM…
It should be noted that singular ‘they’ has been employed by revered writers throughout its history. A list of examples from some such authors is available on Churchyard’s site. Among the luminaries: Lewis Carroll, Walt Whitman, George Eliot, Shakespeare, William Thackeray, Jane Austen, and Oscar Wilde. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage has still more examples for those who prefer their empirical data to be overwhelming.
RSVP
HoistThatRag (08/01, 5:51PM)
“It should be noted that (the) singular ‘they’ has been employed by revered writers throughout its history.”
Are you sure you are not confounding the substantive “collective” usage with the “singular” they? Citations and examples are required. Indeed, can the singular “they” be said to have a “history” at all beyond its purported use by those “revered” writers? And who is “Churchyard” and what is his game? Examples from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage would also be welcome but one must remember that “justification from authority” carries little weight with Montrealman who, when aroused, is prepared to take issue with anyone or anything.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
PS.
“Once more unto the breach MM…”
I believe you will find – perhaps you want to consult your Merriam Dictionary of English Usage – that the correct rendering should be, “Once more INTO the breach.” The full rendering, of course, reads, “Once more into the breach, dear friends.”
To speak of once more “unto” the breach implies that one has arrived at the breach but has not entered it which, in turn, implies cowardice rather than bravery. I think your confusion over the “singular they” might have arisen from similarly ill-conceived and undigested origins.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hey ya Smeagol. Wrong again (not like that’s a suprise or anything).
From the ‘Cry God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’ speech of Shakespeare’s Henry V, Act III, 1598.
KING HENRY V:
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility
RSVP
: Hugo Phurst (08/02, 2:21PM)
You buffoon, don’t you realize that “Once more into the breach, dear friends” is simply a clichĂ© meaning simply a call to arms? Like the buffoon you are, since you didn’t know that it was a clichĂ©, you proceeded to Google it and triumphantly came up with the entire verse from Shakespeare’s Henry V. What a buffoon.
I trust I don’t have to explain what a clichĂ© is, do I? Maybe you should Google that as well. You buffoon!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Actually, could you explain what a cliché is please? Can you also touch base on what singular is too?
RSVP
montrealman on 08/02/2013 at 9:48 AM
It is grammatically correct to use ‘they’ in the singular when you are unaware of the subjects gender. For example:
“MM is a jerk, they are always correcting people.” Would be grammatically incoherent.
“The police officer didn’t arrest him and they said that trolling isn’t illegal.” Is grammatically acceptable. Saying ‘and HE said that trolling isn’t illegal’ is also correct but perhaps misleading if the officer were a female. Since the author of this bitch doesn’t tell us if they are a man or a woman, using ‘they’ is more accurate.
That said, I’m a twice published author. Though my grammar, particularly on comment boards, is far from perfect (thank jeebus for my editor) when writing fiction or writing casually it is not at all unheard of for writers to intentionally misuse grammar to direct the reader. Some even prefer the freestyle use of grammar when done well.
montrealman on 08/02/2013 at 10:01 AM
“…might have arisen from similarly ill-conceived and undigested origins.” Is this a clever way of saying my mom should have swallowed that load? Hah, I’m going to use that sometime.
RSVP
“It is grammatically correct to use ‘they’ in the singular when you are unaware of the subjects (sic) gender.”
Too bad we didn’t hear from all those “revered writers” you claimed (08/01, 5:51PM) employed the singular “they” throughout history. You know, Lewis Carroll, Walt Whitman and all the rest. Oh well. What about your examples?
“The police officer said they didn’t arrest him and they said that trolling isn’t illegal” refers, of course, to the police officers, assuming they were more than one, and not to the troller, who said nothing. Further, “Saying ‘and he said that trolling isn’t illegal’ refers to the singular troller himself. The singular “they” is nowhere in evidence in this wonderful example. Gender is irrelevant. Clearly and conclusively, the use of the singular “they” is incoherent rather than being “more accurate” where gender is indeterminate.
Well, I certainly congratulate you on being a “twice-published author.” Any chance of naming the books, the publishing company and date of publication? Did you intentionally misuse grammar to direct the reader? Did you prefer the freestyle use of grammar when you did it well? Yes, you may certainly use my clever way of saying that your mother should have swallowed that load.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I’m not going to google a bunch of examples, I already know that I’m right. You may feel free to continue to reside in blissful ignorance of the proper use of ‘they’ in singular form. I’d love to give you my book titles but then I’d be giving up my anonymity on these boards and that simply will not do. With regard to your question on my alleged use of freestyle writing – I actually don’t prefer the freestyle use of grammar (unless I am reading, in which case it can be interesting). When I write, I try to use proper grammar, which helps keep my editor employed. But I’m quite good at what I do and my books have gotten many positive reviews. I doubt, however, that they would be your cup of tea.
RSVP
HoistThatRag (08/03, 11:44AM)
Golly Rag, then I guess that’s it. I’ll just have to reside in my blissful ignorance of the proper use of “they” in the singular. Instead of giving your book titles and surrendering your anonymity, what about giving their plot, narrative line and so on. We could discuss their virtues in the abstract. Failing that I will never know if they would be my cup of tea or not.
You’re right there, Rag, your proper use of grammar when writing would certainly help to keep your editor employed and keep you eating as well, assuming you have no other employment such as having a public shoe-shine stand or serving as a doorman for a down-market bordello.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
The first novel is about the last man on earth and his struggle to maintain sanity while surviving in a world devoid of human life. About half way through the book he meets a group of survivors and they all decide to stop looking for more people and put down roots on a ranch and live out their days. At the end of the book it is revealed that they were just figments of his imagination. Each of the five characters that he conjures up represent a part of his mind and are based on jungian archetypes. (The old woman = the nurturing mother figure, the young girl = the mischevious youthful rebellious side, The cowboy/proprietor of the ranch = his ego, The woman who grew up with money and status = his alter-ego and The Mexican who doesn’t speak much english = his subconscious). The way the characters interact with one another and with Joey is important, though the reader wouldn’t really know that until they’ve read the book a second time and have the opportunity to pick up on most of the foreshadowing with the knowledge of the books ultimate conclusion.
The second book is about a meth addict/prostitute. Her sister brings her a sacked lunch every night but arrives one evening to find out she has been murdered. A weird acquaintance of her boyfriend claims to be a bokor (evil voodoo priest) who has the ability to raise the dead. Ignoring logic, she agrees to allow him to try and resurrect her sister and when his claims prove to be truthful, her reanimated sister hunts down the man who raped/killed her and settles the score.
Serving as a door man for a down-market bordello would be awesome.
“thank jeebus for my editor”
My current avatar is testament to the benefits of sleeping with your editor, but it’s a rather long and involved story.
THE REASON
RSVP
: HoistThatRag (08/03, 10;50AM)
Sorry Rag, but I don’t read fiction.
I had long forgotten the reason, but now I remember. What is that reason? The reason is that fiction in general and your efforts in particular have no reason. What does that mean? It means that they have no point. What does it mean to have no point or purpose? It means to have no reason. But must one have a reason to claim an equivalency between having a point or purpose on the one hand and having a reason on the other? Yes, one must have a reason. What is that reason?
The reason lies in the logical entailment involved in the use of concepts such as, in the present case, a point or purpose for action on the one hand and a reason for that action on the other. When one asks, for example, “Did Rag have a reason for writing his two novels?” entailed in that question is the further, embedded question, “Did Rag have a point or purpose in writing his two novels?” The two questions mean the same thing. They possess formal identity. But then the further question arises as to whether that formal identity is all that there is or can some substantive content be given to those questions. In other words, what did Rag actually have in mind as the reason he wrote his two novels?
It is here that the quest – the epistemological trail, if you like – for the reason Rag wrote his two novels encounters substantive obstacles. In other words, WHY did Rag write his two novels? What was he on about? To answer this question with any degree of epistemological certitude one must have direct, unimpeded and unerring access to Rag’s mind. But is this possible? If so, how can this be done?
This raises the perennial question in philosophy relating to our knowledge of “Other Minds.” For example, Rag may say that he wrote his two novels in order to raise the general knowledge of psychological explanation. Of course, Rag may also have been doing a little psychological self-analysis, attempting to clarify the nature of his own psychological problems which appear to be substantial. On the other hand, Rag may say he wrote his two novels simply for their “entertainment” value. How, then, do we know which is the correct answer?
There seems to be only one egress from the dilemma, only one way to determine the reason why Rag wrote his two novels. Let’s ask him. Rag, what was the reason you wrote your two novels?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Ivan, I don’t sleep with my editor, we have professional relationship. Though, I’d be interested in hearing your long and involved story if you care to share it.
MM, I did not expect that you were a lover of fiction. To be quite honest, I prefer reading non-fiction as well. Currently I am reading ‘Cosmos’ by Carl Sagan. However, there have been a few dozen works of fiction that I’ve read that I thought were exceptional. Ernest Hemmingway is one author I quite respect.
“The reason is that fiction in general and your efforts in particular have no reason.” – I often think this to myself and ask why I bother writing. I am not delusional enough to think I’ll ever reach the heights of the great authors of our time. There are always tons of people out there who want to knock you down a peg or criticize you, many of them without ever having read anything you’ve written. These criticisms don’t bother me any more. If someone has negative things to say and they haven’t read my book(s), then I know I can take it with a grain of salt. If someone has negative things to say and they HAVE read my book(s) then I will listen to them and consider their opinions. No writer/artist will ever please 100% of their audience.
The reason that I wrote my novels and am continuing work on other things is because I enjoy it. That’s it. A lot of other people have enjoyed reading the things I have written, which is an added bonus – but even if I was locked away somewhere and there was no chance that anyone would ever read anything I wrote, I’d still write.
Maybe it’s a little bit of psychological self-analysis and a little bit of entertainment value. I have always been inclined to write, ever since I was about 8 years old. As I grew up I became interested in writing different things and trying different forms of art. Storytelling is what I’m best at. I’ve also been in a couple of bands (playing guitar and harmonica), written/illustrated two graphic novels (both around 200 pgs, each the product of 6-7 years work – these will never be published…so you could argue ‘what was the point in spending all that time writing them’, The answer, of course, is that I enjoyed writing them and drawing them and my little brothers enjoyed sitting next to me watching me draw them and then going outside and playing with their friends as characters from my story). I’ve written and directed for the stage and the screen and even gotten an award for best story. I’ve acted for the stage and screen. I paint, even though I am colour blind. I am working on learning how to draw photo realism with graphite pencils and am not too bad freehand. I have cooked the signature dish at a 5 star resort (some consider culinary skills to be a form of art). I even cooked for Peter MacKay and refrained from poisoning his supper. There are still plenty of things that I’d like to try my hand at and I’ve got plenty of time to do it. But writing will always be my first love and I will always write. Even if no one reads it.
RSVP
: HoistThatRag (08/04, 10:51AM)
“The reason that I wrote my novels and am continuing work on other things is because I enjoy it.”
You can’t beat that for a reason. Good luck with your “continuing work on other things.”
I’ve just come off posting a picture and description of a 1555 Philip and Mary shilling on my Facebook page. (125 postings so far.) Like you, I did it because I enjoy it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
A pleasure as always.
Hoist – the quick version is that I wrote an article for a magazine that SOBova was editor of, at the time. Because of that I wound up in a position to do a solid for the military when they were organizing the Shearwater Air Show. And they responded by giving me a spot on the Snowbirds media flight, the day before the Air Show, 1995.
Sierra Hotel!
Hoist that rag
Listen to your audience. Professors will just make your material too choppy. This site must be excellent to practice the descriptive for situational storylines with characters arguing.
The Ancestors Tale by Richard Dawkins…
Now there’s a great work of fiction!
There once was a philosopher named Cato
Who thought himself greater than Plato
Now to his chagrin
He’s just a has been
With an intellect more like a tomato
Thanks to Ivan and TT for pointing out that I neglected to respond 🙂
“Once more into the breach, dear friends” is only said by those who really don’t know their Shakespeare. But we can’t fault you for not knowing proper Shakespeare quotes, since you don’t read fiction and all.
As far as my knowledge of Shakespeare goes, I grew up in a home where the library included the complete works of William Shakespeare, and by the time I was 13 I had seen more than a dozen productions of Bill’s works, including Henry V.
Wit, an ’t be thy will, put me into good fooling! Those wits, that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools. And I, that am sure I lack thee, may pass for a wise man. For what says Quinapalus? “Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit.” – Twelfth Night
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool. – As You Like It
By the way, I think that The Tempest sucked, and Romeo and Juliet were a couple of really stupid kids who justly earned their Darwin Awards.