subjunctive mood and Microsoft

  • Thread starter Hagrinas Mivali
  • Start date
S

Steve Hayes

Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?

Not just the entire message -- the entire thread!

Bandwidth is not a problem for the rich like Ms Barnhill with money to burn,
even if those of us who have to *pay* for the result of her anti-social net
practices get poorer as a result.

The net is, of course, a multicultural place, so we must be tolerant of people
like Ms Barnhill, part of whose culture is to waste other people's money. My
level of tolerance would increase greatly if she offered a donation towards my
telephone bill.
 
S

Skitt

Peter said:
Skitt hayshed:

Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)

True as that is, QF knows what was meant and takes care of it.
 
H

Hagrinas Mivali

Suzanne S. Barnhill said:
I don't see how changing the order of the posting would make any difference
when context is snipped.

It makes a difference because the original quoted text appears logically as
part of your signature. Since you have a line with "--" and nothing on it,
everything below it is considered your signature. This may affect the way
some search engines work, since they may not index any part below that line.
It also may affect some client software, or another user, when the signature
gets deleted when responding.

The problem is that the delimiter is a convention, not a standard. It never
appeared in any RFC and anybody who wrote any utility that takes it into
account is making assumptions that are not necessarily true.
 
H

Hagrinas Mivali

Suzanne S. Barnhill said:
"that this sentence to be wrong" is not correct under any circumstances,
indicative or subjunctive. A clause introduced with "that" cannot use an
infinitive form of the verb.

A clause with "that" can use the subjunctive form, which is the bare
infinitive (without the "to.") It's just more typically used with other
verbs than "say." In any case, I cannot see the logic behind the "to."
With the verb "to say," there is no ambiguity when using the indicative, and
phrases appear awkward with the subjunctive in those cases. I might suggest
THAT he follow this convention, but I wouldn't say THAT he follows it.
 
S

Suzanne S. Barnhill

I think you are trying to apply the grammar rules of some other language to
English. "That this sentence be wrong" would still not be correct (and "be"
would be subjunctive, not infinitive).
 
D

don groves

Suzanne S. said:
I think you are trying to apply the grammar rules of some other language to
English. "That this sentence be wrong" would still not be correct (and "be"
would be subjunctive, not infinitive).

Ebonics is English.
 
H

Hagrinas Mivali

Suzanne S. Barnhill said:
I think you are trying to apply the grammar rules of some other language to
English. "That this sentence be wrong" would still not be correct (and "be"
would be subjunctive, not infinitive).

I think you did not read my post carefully before replying to it. I
disagreed with his use of that sentence from the beginning and I don't think
it is any better without the "to" in it. I specifically said that the
indicative mood would be more appropriate there.

However, if I remember correctly, you argued that the infinitive should not
have been used, and I agree. You also said that a clause introduced with
"that" cannot use an infinitive form of the verb. That's true too. But it
can use the subjunctive. It didn't fit in his example, but I could use the
above phrase correctly. "It is necessary that this sentence be wrong to
serve as an example." That's a correct use of the subjunctive, and it
incorporates that phrase, but it's wrong for a different reason and it's a
paradox.
 
S

Suzanne S. Barnhill

I will certainly agree with all of that. FWIW, my background is in classics
(B.A. in Latin, M.A. in classics), though I've been a copy editor rather
than a Latin teacher for the past 30 years. As a result, it's possible that
I tend to have a slightly distorted view of the subjunctive in English.
 
P

Peter Moylan

John Dunlop hayshed:
Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?

Yours has a space, hers doesn't, unless I've somehow managed to
look at the wrong message. I note, however, that many
people are running Quotefix, which (I gather) repairs errors
like this.
 
B

Beth Melton

Personally I hope my kids will rely on what they learned in school.
You can't replace a proper education with a computer.

<rant> Quite frankly I'm glad word processing programs force the user
to use their brain. Now if we could only get the spreadsheet
programs/calculators to force the user to manually calculate something
occasionally we wouldn't have so many people unable to perform basic
math. </rant>

--
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email can not be acknowledged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
 
C

Charles Kenyon

As has been pointed out, in the word.application.errors newsgroup, this
method of posting is the norm.


John Dunlop said:
Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?
 
H

Hagrinas Mivali

Beth said:
Personally I hope my kids will rely on what they learned in school.
You can't replace a proper education with a computer.

<rant> Quite frankly I'm glad word processing programs force the user
to use their brain. Now if we could only get the spreadsheet
programs/calculators to force the user to manually calculate something
occasionally we wouldn't have so many people unable to perform basic
math. </rant>

They don't force anybody to do anything. Many users rely on them and do
whatever the software says. If it says to add an apostrophe when it is not
needed, some users will not only go along with it, but will also assume that
it's correct and they were wrong in the past.
 
H

Hagrinas Mivali

Peter said:
John Dunlop hayshed:
Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically
snipping Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid
signature separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?

Yours has a space, hers doesn't, unless I've somehow managed to
look at the wrong message. I note, however, that many
people are running Quotefix, which (I gather) repairs errors
like this.

It's easy and free to try. Anybody who does not like it can uninstall it.
I take it you don't need it under OS2?
 
S

Skitt

Charles said:
As has been pointed out, in the word.application.errors newsgroup,
this method of posting is the norm.

John Dunlop said:
Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically
snipping Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid
signature separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?

Yes, and in alt.usage.english (AUE) the other method of posting is the norm.
Crossposting between these goups makes things very interesting, like in this
case. Also, in AUE, some trim extraneous attribution stuff as I have done
above.
 
S

Skitt

Peter said:
Skitt hayshed:

Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically snipping
Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid signature
separator. (The final space is missing.)

No, it is not. Your newsreader must not display it (OE doesn't), but you
can see it if you look at the Google presentation of the post.
 
M

Matti Lamprhey

Skitt said:
Peter said:
[...]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically
snipping Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid
signature separator. (The final space is missing.)

No, it is not. Your newsreader must not display it (OE doesn't), but
you can see it if you look at the Google presentation of the post.

Actually, it's easy to see it in OE if you simply drag your cursor
through the text to highlight it.

Matti
 
S

Suzanne S. Barnhill

Crossposting between these goups makes things very interesting, like in
this
case. Also, in AUE, some trim extraneous attribution stuff as I have done

"as in this case"



Skitt said:
Charles said:
As has been pointed out, in the word.application.errors newsgroup,
this method of posting is the norm.

John Dunlop said:
Peter Moylan wrote:

[ ... ]

Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically
snipping Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid
signature separator. (The final space is missing.)

In spite of her bizarre practice of including the entire
message to which she is responding underneath her own
comment, Ms. Barnhill does get her signature delimiter
right. Does your newsreader strip the space? Does mine
have a space at your end?

Yes, and in alt.usage.english (AUE) the other method of posting is the norm.
Crossposting between these goups makes things very interesting, like in this
case. Also, in AUE, some trim extraneous attribution stuff as I have done
above.
 
S

Skitt

Matti said:
Peter Moylan wrote:
[...]
Nevertheless, neither you nor Martin should be automatically
snipping Suzanne's signature, because she does not have a valid
signature separator. (The final space is missing.)

No, it is not. Your newsreader must not display it (OE doesn't), but
you can see it if you look at the Google presentation of the post.

Actually, it's easy to see it in OE if you simply drag your cursor
through the text to highlight it.

Right. In fact, that's the only way it can be "seen".

What I said above is still true, at least for my OE (with QF). The space is
not "observable", although it is observable on the Google Group presentation
of her posts by using the method you describe. When I wrote my previous
post, I assumed that everybody knew how to look for that space. Silly me,
huh?
 
S

Skitt

Suzanne said:
:

"as in this case"

Here's the skinny from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
Edition:
=============
usage:

Like has been used as a conjunction since the 14th century. In the 14th,
15th, and 16th centuries it was used in serious literature, but not often;
in the 17th and 18th centuries it grew more frequent but less literary. It
became markedly more frequent in literary use again in the 19th century. By
mid-century it was coming under critical fire, but not from grammarians,
oddly enough, who were wrangling over whether it could be called a
preposition or not. There is no doubt that, after 600 years of use,
conjunctive like is firmly established. It has been used by many prestigious
literary figures of the past, though perhaps not in their most elevated
works; in modern use it may be found in literature, journalism, and
scholarly writing. While the present objection to it is perhaps more heated
than rational, someone writing in a formal prose style may well prefer to
use as, as if, such as, or an entirely different construction instead.
==============

Your comment puts you in a somewhat pedantic position, wouldn't you say?

Because of their proximity to each another, I chose to use one of each
("like" and "as"). Style, you know.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top