Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 9 June 2009

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

This user believes date-autoformatting is like lipstick on a pig.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 3.0

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I do not normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

My self-help writing tutorials:

• General advice on how to improve your prose, with specific application to the preparation of featured article nominations
• Exercises in weeding out fluff from article text
• Advanced editing exercises
• Exercises in the use of hyphens, dashes, and other aspects of the Manual of Style
• Exercises in paragraphing and sentence structure

MoS and bot runs

Hi. I've just noticed that bots such as LivingBot are making style changes to articles, based (or not based) on the MoS. in view of your longstanding interest in/knowledge of the MoS, I wonder if you'd like to have a look here. Best. --Kleinzach 00:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tony (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC on the matter, to which you are welcome to contribute. I found the explicit advocacy of the bot's edits in the MoS by the way, it's at WP:LAYOUT (more detail on the RfC). Cheers, - Jarry1250 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a big deal for me, but I will look in within a few days to weigh up people's opinions and the MOS link you kindly provided above. Tony (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of an Rfc on a user page. Seems irregular to me. I wonder if there any precedent for this? It seems this discussion is being repeatedly moved. --Kleinzach 02:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 11. The bot was approved on 29 May. It seems that no-one involved in the various ongoing discussions started by Jarry1250 was told about the BRFA underway at the same time. --Kleinzach 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've written to the 'authorizer' Quadell here. --Kleinzach 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(With +) noun + -ing

Dear Tony1, could you please direct me to a source that gives this rule? I have never heard of it and cannot find a source that discusses it. Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to have a reliable source for this too. I've been telling people left and right to re-cast sentences that use "with plus -ing", and I often suggest alternatives. When challenged, I would like to be able to cite something authoritative beyond Misplaced Pages. I've been looking at manuals of style and poking around on the Internet, but so far I've haven't found a discussion of "with plus -ing" or "noun plus -ing" except the one you've written. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked Tony about that a while back; see his (reply). See also his comment at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/2008 Humanitarian Bowl. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87. I'm glad to see that others have been discussing this and looking for support. I will continue to flag these constructions when I see them and to suggest alternatives. If I can find something in a grammar book that addresses "with plus -ing" directly, I will post a further note. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Dabomb. Finetooth, the thing is, when I first got my knickers in a twist about this, I scoured the Internet to no avail. I think it's a little blank spot in the language, a bit of technical fuzz that people are increasingly prone to misusing. I noticed an occurrence in Jane Austen's Emma, although it was inoffensive (I'm sounding pompous now). Perhaps that proves the point: I may have been unwise in proposing that people never use noun + -ing (as grammarian and lexicographer Gary Symes does): it has the potential to be OK (Austen) on one end of the spectrum through uncomfortable to obviously wrong, and to downright gawky ("The government doing that would be foolhardy just before an election", I saw in The Sydney Morning Herald). It depends on the wording. What I do say, and the point of my show-and-tell exercises on this issue, is that people should stop and think before using it. It can almost always be replaced by a neater, more comfortable grammar. I've responded to Ricardiana's and Finetooth's concerns by toning down the introductory claims in the exercises. And of course, I think it's bad that the issue appears to be acknowledged nowhere on the Internet or in hard copy; if someone knows otherwise, please let me know. Tony (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony1. Your approach seems reasonable and your exercises helpful. I'm especially likely to pounce on "with plus -ing", which I see as a kind of syntactic dust mouse. Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been spreading this nugget around like a cancer wherever I go. It's transcended Misplaced Pages and grown in popularity here in the Southwest US. For the record, I consider Tony an authoritative grammarian and normally refer to a nebulous "Australian expert" when questioned. We are a community of discourse (as large and varied as any you'll find) and, in the postmodern tradition, do we not get to decide who our authorities are? --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Laser brain: I disown it—all football and beer, complacency and anti-intellectualism. I have always been an outsider and always will be, despite my birthplace and my residence here for more than half a century. Tony (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have always called these "fused participles". I hear them in spoken English (in the UK) everyday, but they are, most often, confusing and ugly in prose. Very occasionally it's best to leave them alone, especially if the writer's meaning is clear. But I don't like them, and the solution—as Tony has clearly shown—is rarely difficult to find. Graham. Graham Colm 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes let the noun + -ings go by, but never when "with" is used as a connector. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The most recent edition of the Chicago Manual Style discusses this construction briefly and condemns it, with, however, no substantive explanation. ~ Thank you, Tony, for your response and the changes you made to the advanced editing exercises page. Ricardiana (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The grammatical core is noun plus -ing; using "with" as a connector is just a common magnet for this construction. The fact is, you can use the "with" connector and avoid "noun + -ing" after it: in the next example, the square bracketed makes the second clause correct, but the "with" connector is still trashy:

"The police officer flagged them down, with the car lurching all over the road".

Why is "with" trashy? Because it's a lazy throw-in connector that fails to clarify the nature of the connection between first and second clauses. Here, it's not additive ("and the car was lurching ..."), nor contrastive ("although the car was lurching ..."), but causal ("because the car was lurching all over the road"). So, replacing the vague connector "with" to clarify that causality is essential for clarity and ease of reading. Yes, in this example, the reader can piece together that the relationship is causal, but it's slightly more work; in many cases, it's harder, and in some cases, impossible, to determine the writer's intention in this respect. Thus, there are two grammatical issues here, often associated. Tony (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've long wondered about this, so I found that explanation quite insightful. I'm glad I decided to click on this page. –Juliancolton |  05:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this "trashy" example is not necessarily characteristic of all instances of "with + -ing." It's sometimes used as a type of appositive, for example, in which case the relationship is perfectly clear. A different argument against the usage can be found here, although I'm not wholly convinced by it. Basically, I'm not convinced that all instances must be rephrased, partly because in some instances the causal relationship is clear and no words would necessarily be saved by a change, partly because I'm no fan of traditional grammar, and partly because I'm suspicious of arguments that rely primarily on put-downs and prescriptions whose justification is an afterthought. Calling a usage "trashy" or, in the Chicago Manual's words, "slovenly", is all well and good, but it is all too reminiscent, to my mind, of the countless "arguments" against gender-neutral language that often boil down to "it just doesn't sound good / right" and "it's just not right." With all due respect to all on this talk page, I'm still seeing a lot of that type of thinking here - I don't like it, it doesn't sound right, it can be re-phrased, yes Jane Austen uses it but I don't like it, we don't need no authorities, we can make up our own rules a la Mr Wilson, etc. ~ Essentially, I like the changes you made to the editing exercises because they move in the direction of acknowledging that this construction is more diverse than it seems. Ricardiana (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I caught this on the jungle drums. I think there's little chance of formulating a clear rule here, because that's the nature of English - there's no Academie Anglaise and I think any attempt to create one would be laughed out of existence. I'm not keen on the examples quoted in the pages referred to here. I'd omit aesthetic objections, as the language is constantly changing and varies a little around the world (sub-continental Indian English is a conspicuous example) and such objections may be taken as condescending. If I saw "with ..ing" in an article I was reviewing, I could get rid of it by pointing out that it's ambiguous, as Ricardiana did above for "The police officer flagged them down, with the car lurching all over the road". I think it would be useful for Tony to comment on the issue in the "How to pass ..." guide, but as an exercise in clarification. --Philcha (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, the "flagging the car down" was my example. Ricardiana, are you able to give us one or two examples where a "with" connector can't be replaced with a neater grammar? Your example at the PR review of "... argues that history and myth are closely aligned, with history being in some ways another form of myth" reinforces that this is a bad construction. Just because a reputable publisher (Yale U.P.) put it out doesn't mean it's good, or even correct: let's start by removing "being", solving the more obvious awkwardness, and while we're at it, let's make it logical in terms of categories: "... argues that history and myth are closely aligned, with history being in some ways another form of myth". Now two things are fixed, the "with" connector might stand without odour (I don't mind it, and few would, I think). But if we want to polish, why not make the relationship between the clauses explicit? Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that this an additive connection, not causal or contrastive:

"... argues that history and myth are closely aligned, and that history itself is in some ways a form of myth"

To take another example from that recent discussion, "They owned dogs, with four dogs being old." I put the "six" in to make it more likely. Why not "They owned six dogs, four of them old." There's almost always a way to improve on this construction.

Ricardiana, may I quote you? "Well, I've found something! It goes against me, sort of. My new Chicago Manual of Style calls the construction "slovenly". Ouch! That's not, however, the same as ungrammatical, and they give no explanation for why they dislike it, except that it's "slovenly". -Their example, too, is rather wordy; getting rid of wordiness is always good, and their example (it's upstairs, but I'm feeling lazy, but it's something like "They all went to the beach with me being left to wash the dishes") can certainly be shortened by re-casting." Again, as you sensed, it could be "They all went to the beach leaving me to wash the dishes", with an optional comma after "beach". CMOS might have provided the easy solution to this, hey? More importantly, I want to cite this. You must have gone upstairs to consult it for the page number—is the example exactly the wording you've given? Can you provide the publication year and place, please? I want to cite it in the exercise section. FINALLY, there's a reference to what we knew logically and instinctively. BTW, it's hard to see why CMOS would label it "slovenly" if they thought it was good grammar; and it's notable that they felt moved to mention it. They're fence-sitting because no one there with muscle has thought it through. Perhaps they should come to WP for that. Tony (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the misattribution.

Re "Perhaps they should come to WP for that," is that a good sign? --Philcha (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think so. We have disadvantages, but our advantage is openness and up-to-dateness. Hard-copy style guides have a lot of baggage and tend to be inherently conservative. Tony (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not recommend that Chicago adopts anything from WP:MOS. IMO one of WP:MOS's failings is that it apes hard-copy style guides. --12:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But but but but ... There are many many hard-copy style guides. At the very least, WP's MoS has had to pick and choose the most suitable bits of each where they make sense for our circumstances. That has often involved disregarding most guidelines from most hard-copy style guides. Isn't it a little harsh to call that apeing? Tony (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DASH - introduced w/o consensus (see the histories of the guideline & its Talk page); recently occupied over 50% of WT:MOS, most comments & contributors opposed to WP:DASH.
• Disregard of Web readability guidelines that have advocated bullet lists, short sentences, paras and sections since 1997.

Will that do for a start? --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, well, first of all, as you requested, here is the bit from the Chicago Manual, the new 15th edition, page 193 (I believe I gave this information on the peer review page also, by the way):

"With" used loosely as a conjunction. The word with is sometimes used as a quasi-conjunction meaning and. This construction is slovenly because the with-clause appears to be tacked on as an afterthought. For example, the sentence everyone else grabbed the easy jobs with me being left to scrub the oven could be revised as since everyone else grabbed the easy jobs, I had to scrub the oven. Or it could be split into two sentences joined by a semi-colon: Everyone else grabbed the easy jobs; I had to scrub the oven. Instead of with, find the connecting word, phrase, or punctuation that best shows the relationship between the final thought and the first, and then recast the sentence. (section 5.190)

Now that you have that, here are my responses to your other points. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. First, I disagree that a phrase or sentence must be unrevisable in order to be good. I know you said "replaced by neater grammar", but that begs the question (in the technical sense, not the sloppy Law and Order sense) of which grammar is neater. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I am glad that someone has finally started to examine a real sentence from a real book - everyone so far seems to agree that the construction can be ugly, so it has not been helpful to see a parade of made-up straw man examples that are in fact ugly. As to this real example - you find it also ugly. I don't. This is an aesthetic difference, I guess, of which more below. Yes, it can be re-phrased. So can anything. Perhaps the second construction is better - in the absence of a grammatical justification (and by that I mean a source and some technical terms), it's a matter of opinion. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You asked for an example of an instance of this construction that I think couldn't be rephrased with neater grammar. I refuse the challenge on those terms, because, as I've said, anything can be rephrased and the discussion of what constitutes neater grammar is so far being conducted largely on aesthetic terms. The main non-aesthetic criterion that's so far been given is "logic". Here is a sentence that I think is fine. The "logical" relationship in the sentence I am about to give is perfectly clear, and I might add that this type of construction is quite common in scientific texts:

• "All we are assuming about the Wiener- Kuratowski implementation is that "x = (y, z)" is stratified with 'x' being given a type index two greater than the index assigned to 'y' and 'z.'" Set theory with a universal set: exploring an untyped universe, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 75. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't think it's fair to find Chicago's mention of the construction to be significant and then to dismiss Yale UP; that strikes me as cherry-picking our authorities. ~ Incidentally, I gave other examples on the peer review page, and there are extra examples from uni. presses in my sandbox; it's hardly just Yale. Oxford seems to be most fond of the construction. ~ The fact that Chicago is fence-sitting is, of course, an indication that they feel it's poor grammar, and a giveaway that they have no idea why this is so. Apparently, no one else does either, but this seems to affect confidence but little. That in turn is a dead give-away that the objection is primarily an aesthetic one. Such aesthetic objections, I find, are most common in those who tend primarily to read books written in the 20th or 21st centuries. I know that I have seen this construction in Victorian novels, although I can't find an example at the moment; you have conceded that Jane Austen uses it; Hans, below, cites Lewis Carroll. My aesthetic sense tells me that this construction can be fine and grates on people's ears because it is old-fashioned, pure and simple, not because it is wrong. I am flatly not bothered by many of the examples that bother others. To argue that a bad "odour" makes a construction one to be avoided is to prioritize one aesthetic sense over another. Why is that? What makes one aesthetic sense better than another? Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. My answer: aesthetic sense shouldn't be the criterion here, as the repeated talk of odours and trashiness and slovenliness indicates that it is. I just want to reiterate: this discussion is filled with daintiness. Everyone seems to "mind" things or graciously not "mind" them. This is a dangerous way to go about making grammatical decisions, as the history of grammar shows. The word "firefighter" sounded "wrong" to people when it was put forward as a non-sexist alternative to "fireman". So it sounded wrong - too bad. Now it sounds fine. The "it sounds wrong" argument needs to stop because it's not an inherently good criterion. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. So, what would be good criteria? Isn't Chicago's condemnation enough? No, because they are fence-sitting; they have no grammatical justification; and they do not acknowledge the diversity of the construction. Further, their condemnation strikes me as similar in kind to prohibitions against starting a sentence with "and" or "but". Some "rules" are simply conveniences for teachers who must suffer through papers that vary, often, from poorly written to dreadfully written. I teach at a university, and have also tutored there, and I see all the time sentences beginning with "and" or "but" that are just awful and should have been mercilessly aborted. And yet, grammatically, beginning a sentence with one of those words can be fine; teaching students how to discern when it's fine and when it's not, especially when they receive little to no grammatical instruction in college and have often received little to none prior to college, is ... difficult. And so many teachers prefer to just prohibit certain words, because it's easier than knowing and teaching the difference. That is what Chicago has done; they teach ... in their measly paragraph ... avoidance, based on the really poor examples, without acknowledging that such constructions are not always so poorly done (I'd love to see the Jane Austen sentence, for example) and without bothering to explain, or even knowing, the difference. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Hans Adler has already pointed out how these constructions (I think we should use a plural to indicate the diversity here) can be grammatically justified. Here's more. I'm not going to give all the publication details because I found all these through Google Books; anybody can find the information and I'm getting tired of typing. Later I may come back and add the quotations, but for now I'll just list references regarding only the use of the possessive before a gerund. Since I'm not typing up the quotations, I'll just sum up here that the argument, grammatically speaking, is what type of word can precede a gerund. Must it be a possessive? Can it be a genitive? Can it be in the objective case? Etc. This is where the debate lies.

• The entry on "Genitive before a gerund" in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English by Kenneth G. Wilson, p. 210, says that the construction of g before g used to be taught as a matter-of-course (as correct) and has now fallen into obscurity. (This explains why it "sounds wrong.")
• William Safire in The right word in the right place at the right time beginning on p. 1 cites a dispute over the issue of possessive before gerund in the 1920s between W. H. Fowler and Otto Jesperson. Fowler was against it, Jesperson was for it. Safire ... unsurprisingly ... is against it. Antonin Scalia (!) ... yes, it's in the chapter ... is for it, on occasion.
• Words to the Wise by Michael Sheehan, p. 102, says that the question of what can precede a gerund turns on what you want to emphasise in a given sentence (this was Scalia's argument, actually) and that authorities are divided pretty much 50-50 on the question.
• Note 6 on p. 228 of Nineteenth-century English by Merja Kytö, Mats Rydén, Erik Smitterberg says that these gerundial constructions were first condemned by the Fowler brothers. The chapter to which this is a footnote investigates the occurrence of the construction in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries; it appears to have been used little, if at all, in the 18th century, and to have been very commonly used in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th, before Fowler & Fowler decided against it, after which usage is still frequent, but less so than in the 19th c. The chapter argues also for the inherent grammaticality of these constructions.
• There is a discussion of the issue beginning on p. 48 of TALKS ON WRITING ENGLISH SECOND SERIES (1901). The author argues again that the choice of word prior to the gerund should be based on what word you want to emphasize.

There's more, but that's enough for now. Ricardiana (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One more: there is an extended discussion of the issue here in the American Heritage® Book of English Usage. A sample (because I can cut and paste): "gerund and possessives (fused participle). Some people insist that when a gerund is preceded by a noun or pronoun, the noun or pronoun must be in the possessive case. Accordingly, it is correct to say I can understand his wanting to go, but incorrect to say I can understand him wanting to go. But the construction without the possessive, sometimes called the fused participle, has been used by respected writers for 300 years and is perfectly idiomatic." Ricardiana (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I think you might be interested in the entry for "possessive with gerund" in MWDEU. It quotes the following examples from an 1867 letter by Lewis Carroll: "in hopes of his being able to join me" and "the music prevented any of it being heard". I think that's basically what this section is about – otherwise sorry for the intrusion. They give a history of the dispute whether such constructions are admissible at all, and if they are admissible, whether the possessive is allowed or perhaps even required. It starts: "From the middle of the 18th century to the present time grammarians and other commentators have been baffled by the construction. They cannot parse it, they cannot explain it, they cannot decide whether the possessive is correct or not. The earliest commentators, Harris and Lowth 1763, were distinctly hostile to the possessive case." They conclude: "Both forms have been used by standard authors. Both forms have been called incorrect, but neither is." --Hans Adler (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: I agree about the trashiness of the with constructions, but somehow I find it hard to believe you about these examples:

1. The police officer flagged them down, with the car lurching all over the road.
2. The police officer flagged them down, with the car's lurching all over the road.

For me 1 is grammatical although a bit trashy as you say (and for me as a non-native speaker the ambiguity was actually a problem, because I had to look up lurch). But I consider 2 to be ungrammatical. (Actually, replacing "with" by "what with", making the sentences sound like from a witness report in a detective story, both become equally acceptable to me.) I can explain some relevant factors, but not with a with example:

1. The police officer watched the car lurching all over the road.
2. The police officer watched the car's lurching all over the road.
3. The police officer watched it lurching all over the road.
4. The police officer watched its lurching all over the road.

Here 3 and 4 are clearly both grammatical. 3 is slightly better than 4, probably because "the police officer watched it" is already a complete sentence that comes very close to the meaning of the full sentence. 1 is as good as 3, but 2 is ungrammatical in my idiolect. (MWDEU lists several opinions, which it summarises thus: "It is clear, however, that the possessive case does not predominate with nouns to the extent it does with personal pronouns.")

Hans: you, the participants above, and others—particularly User:Hoary and User:Noetica—have forced me to partially re-think this issue. Just why I should be feeling my way through it is testament to the fact that it's a major part of the grammar that has not properly been mapped; in fact, a far more common issue than the once treated in the section below. Ricardiana's ref. to CMOS is the first I've heard of it in the literature. (Please, what is MWDEU?) Neither Hoary nor Noetica could provide a confident, definitive answer; they just sensed that I was been too black-and-white about it.

So it's clear to me now that there's a continuum in the use of noun + -ing, and that if handled very carefully, it can be OK. No. 3 is a good example of this, as was Hoary's similar example (err ... something like "See the bird flying away?"). However, I must say I can't go along with your hypothesis that "3 is slightly better than 4, probably because "the police officer watched it" is already a complete sentence that comes very close to the meaning of the full sentence".

We just need to work out the "rules" or "patterns" where it's OK and where it becomes less satisfactory, so writers have a few guidelines by which to judge whether to go ahead and use it, or whether to avoid it. Perhaps one is that where adding the possessive 's is ungainly ("car" is an inanimate object, and "the car's lurching" is pretty bad, let's face it), noun + -ing might work better. There may be positives and negatives to weigh up. Tony (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick response - the MWDEU is here. More in a second as I grab my Chicago. Ricardiana (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm learning from this debate another way to improve my reviewing technique. In cases not covered by the Manual of Style, it may be best to avoid labels like "ungrammatical" and to simply suggest one or more alternatives followed by a question mark. In my experience, the technique of suggesting an alternative avoids confrontation and often leads to a better sentence, which might or might not be the one I have suggested. Finetooth (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that approach. Good thinking! Ricardiana (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A grammatical mystery

Dear colleagues, although this is not directly connected with a recommendation in MoS, I wonder whether anyone can point to a source that discusses a grammatical phenomenon that appears to be utterly unacknowledged in the major style guides and grammatical authorities. Understanding the phenomenon—why it works—may assist our editors when they use (or don't use) the construction at issue. I've raised the issue on an international linguistics mailing list, but I'm unsure that the professionals have yet provided a convincing answer.

The issue concerns the ability in English to remove "the" from nominal groups (nouns, put simply), when two or more occur in a clause (typically "A and B", but also "from A to B"). The removal of "the" in these instances is not possible if only one noun is expressed.

• "We travelled over hill and dale to get there" (but not "We travelled over hill to get there").
• "In that situation, driver and passenger are equally liable" (rather than "the driver and the passenger").
• "She would start by placing bucket and shovel to one side".
• "It involves an algorithm to prune each node top-down from root to leaves" (rather than "from the root to the leaves").

Both singular and plural are possible ("leaves"), and the removal of "a" is possible in the singular. The odd thing is that such exclusion (is it ellipsis?) can appear to be elegant in a duple construction (and I guess a triple or more) while being plain wrong in a single noun. If you know how to explain this phenomenon, I'd be most grateful to hear. Perhaps on my talk page if more than a short reply? Tony (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried this one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can make neither a head nor a tail of this phenomenon, I recommend reading all Language Log articles until you find a discussion of the subject. If after a year or so you find they haven't discussed it at all, it will still have been worth it. I just made a little search for it myself, but couldn't find anything relevant. My best guess is that it is somehow connected with word flow and the influence of old forms of English that have survived in some idioms. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ho ho! Bookmarked. Thanks, Adler. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Hans is partly right. It's certainly related to fossilized phrases, and there could also be a prosodic factor involved. Those matters aside, I'd say it's another manifestation of the fact that coordination is a rum affair. Consider case, where there's usually little choice available. As English morphology is so impoverished I'm going to have to use a pronoun rather than bucket or shovel; but consider the following:

1. I went there.
2. Me went there.
3. I and Joe went there.
4. Joe and I went there.
5. Me and Joe went there.
6. Joe and me went there.

In my idiolect, #1 is fine, #2 is unthinkable (if not a joke), #3 sounds unidiomatic (perhaps it's unconscious modesty but anyway I'd place myself second), #4 is fine, #5 and #6 are informal and idiomatic. Note the difference between (a) #2 and (b) #5 and #6, and how radical this difference really is. (I'd be interested to know if it's paralleled in German.) ¶ I don't have time to explore this further. Tony, I know that you are repelled by formal ("Chomskyan" etc) approaches of grammar, but I'd google-scholar "coordination" and "determiner" or "case" and look at some attempts at formal accounts of this. Before these get into such matters as EPP and projections of DP, they're likely to survey the evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC) .... PS More useful search terms for you are the technical terms anarthrous and WTF coordination. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to look for a parallel in French, because that's where "me" comes from (I believe; I hope I will be corrected by an expert if wrong).

1. J'y allais.
2. Moi y allais.
3. Je et Jean y allaient.
4. Jean et je y allaient.
5. Moi et Jean y allaient.
6. Jean et moi y allaient.

The issues are very similar. 1 is normal, 2 is wrong (and is replaced by "Moi, j'y allais" when the pronoun is to be stressed). I believe 3 and 4 are both ungrammatical, but I would like to hear what an expert has to say about this. 5 and 6 are fine. I guess that this simple system strongly influenced English grammar, and that prescriptivists who legislated against this use of moi/me made things more complicated. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In my "idiolect" (college and university English), Nos. 2, 5, and 6 are equally unacceptable English; they are not "idiomatic" English; they are "colloquial" or "slang" English spoken (usually not written) by English speakers who are not familiar with the "rules" of English Grammar. Nos. 5 and 6 are no more acceptable than No. 2. All three examples use the incorrect objective case of the pronoun for the person (me) instead of the correct subjective case of the pronoun (I). The same usage of cases would occur in many other languages too (e.g., Slavic and Germanic languages requiring agreements of cases with other syntactical elements); subjects of sentences require subjective cases of pronouns; objects (predicates) in sentences require objective cases of pronouns. Those are rules of grammar. Just because some people speak a certain way does not make it correct to write that way, unless one is using dialogue illustrating dialects in drama, fiction, poetry, or other forms of "creative writing". In a discursive essay written in "formal English" (such as an "article" being submitted to an encyclopedia--e.g., Misplaced Pages's situation--or other online and print publications deemed worthy of citing--in Misplaced Pages or elsewhere as a "reliable source"), items no. 2, 5, and 6 are not acceptable writing. --NYScholar (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Item no. 3 is not acceptable usage either (in written English). While one might hear or overhear someone using these constructions somewhere, none of them is correct English usage; none of them is acceptable formal English (which Misplaced Pages's MOS states is the kind of English to use for its encyclopedia articles; contractions (subject-verb) and the first name of subjects of personal biographies tend to be ruled out of Misplaced Pages as well, due to their "informality" of style. Some colloquialisms may be accepted by editors, but what is "colloquial" is not necessarily also "common" or "correct" or "general usage" in "formal" English writing (currently-correct grammar, spelling, mechanics, and so on). To learn what is "currently-correct grammar" etc., especially when in doubt, one does not consult Misplaced Pages (or its talk pages); one consults peer-reviewed (not peer edited) third-party published style guides written by acknowledged experts in their fields. --NYScholar (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To find answers to questions such as the one posed at the beginning of this section, one really needs to consult histories of the development of the English language, which are written by specialists in that field, who study changes in general usage of English (what is considered correct "idiomatic" English) over time, as the language evolves; linguistic--specifically, morphological--evolution of the English language is just one of these fields of study. There are disciplinary overlaps of these various fields within "the history of the English language" with linguistics, stylistics, grammar, spelling, and other mechanics (e.g, punctuation). Dictionaries (books giving definitions and examples of the historical usage of words) are useful (like the Oxford English Dictionary) for charting evolutionary changes in usage of (mostly) British English; related dictionaries and other textbooks exist for American English linguistic usage/evolution, with several specialist dictionaries of slang, popular culture, etc. The experts in these related fields are the authors (and editors/compilers) of those books (whose content is sometimes uploaded to online sites, but whose publication details first appear in the printed versions). This is a huge area involving interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary fields and experts trained in those various disciplines. --NYScholar (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

¶ In most of the instances, there's some level of abstraction or generalisation, sometimes converting into an adverbial or noun phrase, as in "He's been at this job, man and boy, for 53 years now." or "It's time to dig out the corruption from our government, root and branch." (A famous radical document from the English Civil War is in fact called "The Root and Branch Petition".) Neither definite (the) nor indefinite (a/an) articles really convey the idiomatic sense, and in fact would spoil it. I presume that Hans Adler was being at least partly jocular in writing "make neither a head nor a tail", which is definitely not idiomatic in either Britain or the U.S., since the only familiar forms are:

• "neither head nor tail"
• "neither heads nor tails"
• " head or tail"; or
• " heads or tails".

§ You should also remember that English is unusual among Indo-European languages in having long since removed gender from most common nouns, and also from the definite and indefinite article ("Le Roi et la Reine" in French, but "the King and Queen" in English, incidentally avoiding the awkward inclusion in Spanish of the feminine within the masculine in such phrases as "los Reyes Católicos" meaning "el Rey Fernando II de Aragón y la Reina Isabella I de Castilla". Cf. "the jester sang for the king and queen, in a coat he borrowed from James Dean..." in "American Pie".) This allows some subtlety in deciding whether to telescope the first article to modify the second and subsequent nouns in a conjoined list, as in "a horse and cart" (implying a pair) vs "a horse and a cart" (obtained separately), or "the president and vice-president" (quoted together) vs "the president and the vice-president" (quoted separately), or "the husband and wife" (couple) vs "the husband and the wife" (as individuals) or "The City and County of San Francisco" (a unified government) vs "The City and the State of New York" (two different governments). This is also true of more abstract nouns. Marcel Ophuls' documentary Le Chagrin et la Pitié (separate articles required in French, especially with different genders) is released in English as The Sorrow and the Pity, but an adored relative can be called either "the light and joy of his life" or "the light and the joy of her existence".

§ There are also a class of instances (and I'm just using my memory, not a manual of style or usage) where nouns can be used without articles. This tends to vary over time and country. For example, at least in their own countries where no ambiguity is likely, "Parliament" and "Congress" are usually written without articles, although articles are used when adjectives distinguish "the Australian Parliament", "the Scottish Parliament" or "the Mexican Congress" from those of other countries. In Britain, but not the U.S., articles are often dropped from "Conference" and "Convocation" (and sometimes "Council") where the specific body is clear. Below Congress in the U.S., however, articles are almost always used, largely because there are usually more than one with the same name, thus "the Senate", "the Legislature", "the General Assembly", "the Convention", "the Council". Apart from the well-known case of inherently-abstract general ideals ("Truth, Justice and the American Way", which also vary in the way they're used when standing alone: "he stands for truth" or "he searches for the truth", but never "he wants the justice" or "he followed American Way"), some concrete nouns can stand in for more general ideas, but (and here we come back finally and without resolution to the original conundrum) usually only within pairs and triplets. To construct an artificial, old-fashioned and stylistically-horrible example, "We worked and fought together, father and son, night and day, heart and soul, with might and main, with mind, body and spirit, not for fame, not for glory, not for money, but for King and Country, for freedom and democracy, for hearth and home, for wife and family, for kith and kin, for town and countryside, for rich and poor, for Protestant, Catholic and Jew alike." —— Shakescene (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Shakescene: (a) At least one other Germanic language—gendered, of course—has this phenomenon: German ("über Stock und Stein" is just one example I've been given by an anglophone linguist who works in German, who says the phenomenon is not uncommon in German). I don't think it's to do with the absence of gender in English. However, you make a valuable side-point about the subtle coupled/non-coupled meanings in the use of "the" + ellipted "the" versus "the" + "the". (b) "The Root and Branch Petition"—"root" and "branch" are adjectives qualifying "petition"; I should have emphasised that the phenomenon in question involves the coupling of two nouns, as in my last example above ("from root to leaves"). In any case, there's a "the", which kind of spoils the example (?).

Hoary: I don't really understand the relevance of your six examples, but thanks for the key search words. (PS I believe No. 5 is unthinkable too; No. 6 likely just to bring out the snob in me.)

Darkfrog: The Bartleby site: I like some of it; I dislike some of it as misleading (often through the provision of too little information on an issue). I can't find mention of this pheonemon on that list—nor even of "the" in general. Non-native speakers have a particular need for this area of the grammar to be explained clearly.

Bartleby.com is merely an internet site that draws its online information from print-published sources listed in its 3rd column menu; the dictionary that it uses for definitions of English words, for example, is listed as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (), whose editors/compilers/contributors are listed in the print publication's apparatus; the same would be the case for all the other print-published sources from which the online site Bartleby.com draws for its online content. Such internet sites are simply convenient quick reference sites which direct their readers to their print-based publications for more detailed information. Such internet sites are not substitutes for the full reference sources from which they glean material; print publications are sometimes between editions, however, and not yet updated quickly enough; sometimes online versions are updated more frequently than their print-based sources. (One needs to take a look at the "about" pages of such sites for more information about how they are constructed from the print-based publications. Amazon.com is tied into Bartleby.com as a sponsor. The copyrights for the content are actually the sources used with licenses that may be identified in the copyright information pages of such sites. --NYScholar (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the copyright information is given at the EL listed above, and an Amazon.com ad on the site goes to the 4th ed. of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which was published way back in 2000; the information, therefore, is over 9 years old, and may not be current usage for certain words or constructions that have changed since prior to 2000 (books may take 1 to 2 years to get into print, depending on the specific publishing situation). So, what may seem "current usage" in Bartleby.com may no longer be current usage. --NYScholar (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans: Thanks for the Language Log tip; I'll see if I can post the query there if we cannot work it out here.

My new hunches (but only hunches):

1. Does it have to do with a sense of the habitual, the repeated? I mean, is this an important (perhaps not essential) contextual requirement—that we travelled over multiple hills and dales to get there; that in a situation that arises as a matter of course on the roads, "driver and passenger are equally liable"; that every time she performed a certain gardening task, "she would start by placing bucket and shovel to one side"; and that the algorithm for pruning from root to leaves is applied iteratively.
2. Is the whole thing an ellipsis of "both", which can stand in for "the" or "a"? That is: "She would start by placing the bucket and the spade to one side."? This might have evolved through the acknowledgement—whether conscious or unconscious—that specifying two nouns is an expression of "both". In this respect, Shakescene's observations about the ellipsis of "the" from the second noun may be relevant.

The plot thickens. Tony (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the one internal link to a source listed in Heads or tails, which (too often typically for Misplaced Pages) is an article missing references and citations: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. (not only 1898 but also later, 2000, ed.?]; it was revised as recently as 2006, according to the information about the print publication (Amazon.com). See list of "usage" and "reference" sources via Bartleby.com menu: & . (Brewer's has its own source description page there too. The ISBN nos. and full publication info. are accessible via the Amazon.com cross-links at Bartleby.com.) (cont.)

There is so much undocumented speculation going on in this section too; there are reliable published sources that one can consult to answer such questions. Even some Misplaced Pages articles provide sources for preliminary and further research ("Further reading" in WP:MOS, e.g., is a beginning). (cont.)

Much of what is being discussed in this talk page seems to be "original research" instead of research based on published sources (see WP:NOR). Why is there so much undocumented speculation in this talk page about WP:MOS when people could be consulting non-Misplaced Pages published sources to answer such questions? --NYScholar (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How is the discussion taking place in this section related to the purpose of this talk page? ("This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.") (updated) --NYScholar (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Location: For that very reason, I invited people to respond on my talk page (see my first entry). I don't mind either way. (cont.)

WP:NOR—in this case, there appear to be no published sources (how does Brewer's dictionary of phrase and fable help?). This is a problem for the language as a whole—not to mention for our editors, who are writing high-profile public text in English. Not all of the grammar is mapped, and there are surprising gaps. Should we sit around waiting for groups of fusty gentlemen drinking cups of tea behind closed doors at the major hard copy style guides to identify these aspects of the grammar so that we can help our editors to write well and with insight into the mechanics of the language? Tony (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See the 17th ed., which is linked in the webpage about it: ; the content at Bartleby.com is 18th-early 19th-century usage; the book has been updated many times in subsequent editions; Bartleby's content is copyrighted on its site as "2000"; but see the actual published book's publication information for more information. Misplaced Pages editors are not experts of the same authority as these kinds of published sources. Even the article this book (as stated above) is not documented in Misplaced Pages. to provide reliable sources that are verifiable by Misplaced Pages readers; less on speculations by its editors, who are "guessing" about why constructions may be the way they are. That is not the purview of WP:MOS. I don't think that the discussions of various editors about why a certain English construction may be the way it is in current English idiomatic usage is going to help other editors know whether or not it is a correct current idiomatic usage. One just needs to have an authoritative third-party published source stating what is correct common usage in formal English discursive prose (encyclopedia prose). --NYScholar (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If that were true, MoS would require citations to be peppered throughout. There are none, with good reason: WP's needs are unique, and thus it needs a unique set of style guides (online, wiki, pan-English, etc). While external "authorities" (who are often expressing subjective angles) do play a role in debate here, they are not regarded as prescriptive influences on MoS. If only CMOS took its own advice ... Tony (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is Misplaced Pages's policy for material added to articles. Discussions making arguments about matters relating to Misplaced Pages's Manual of style (WP:MOS) in this talk page, where people state what they "think" is is "correct" and/or "incorrect" usage need to provide similarly verifiable sources to be convincing to other Misplaced Pages editors and readers: following the same core policies. I am more convinced by experts who publish in their fields in third-party peer-reviewed publications than I am by Misplaced Pages's peer editors (whose expertise I have no knowledge of). As a reader and editor of Misplaced Pages articles, I am aware of WP:LOP. Speculation is not an intended feature of editorial discussions in Misplaced Pages; it is not encouraged by its core policies. It may be fun (and, as suggested) be more suitable to user talk pages (if suitable there), but it is not really productive here (on this talk page), in my view. So I would suggest that others re-read your initial comment and see where you welcomed longer comments not directly relating to the WP:MOS on your own talk page. That's a useful place to go. --NYScholar (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have several comments:

• So far this has been one of the few discussions on this talk page where nobody felt the urge to kill their opponent because they dared to say something that was so outrageously wrong. Within reason (and I think we haven't crossed that boundary yet) that's a good thing even if the discussion is slightly off-topic.
• The "no original research" rule is for what we put into article space. It's perfectly fine if a policy or guideline page contains original research; otherwise WP:EW or indeed WP:NOR could never have been written. It's also perfectly fine when editors engage in original research on an article talk page when discussing how to use their editorial discretion. If someone made an interesting claim in 1998 (e.g. "within the next 2 years the Eiffel Tower will collapse under the weight of visitors"), and oddly nobody has mentioned it since then, original research ("a Google search brings up no such disaster") may settle the question whether it was true or not. Editors may then decide (and if the claim is of borderline noteworthiness I expect them to do that) to mention the claim if they know it to be true, and omit it if they know it to be false. WP:NOR only says that they may not say it's true or it's false based on original research.
• Of course we are all just speculating. But this speculation might help us to find a reliable source that discusses the problem.
• I have no problem with continuing on Tony's talk page, either. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For other sources, as directed via WP:MOS#Further reading, see Dictionaries#Major English dictionaries, among which one will find already listed … Bartleby.com, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. I'll be away after this, so I'm just listing these internal links; there are others accessible via the "Further reading" list for answering questions about specific "stylistic" matters of interest to editors of Misplaced Pages not covered in detail in the MOS. If people who are attempting to edit Misplaced Pages are not native speakers and writers of English, then there are specific guides addressed to such readers, with specific information about using English as a foreign language. If one is a native speaker and writer of English, one should already have received education in grammar or elementary school and in high school (not in college, unless remedial courses) in basic rules of English grammar, spelling, other mechanics, and idiomatic usage of English for formal writing (as in an encyclopedia). When in doubt about using a particular construction (unsure of its correctness), the WP:MOS would recommend choosing a different way of expressing the same point (not using a cliché or colloquialism, and thus avoiding construction common mainly or only in some particular national variety of English, for example). Formal discursive writing of the kind recommended in the WP:MOS does not depend on the usage of clichés or colloquialisms. --NYScholar (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've detechnicalised a few terms. Tony (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Repondent 1: This is a fascinating question, and one that I would relate to underlying generic meaning, although ellipsis also seems to be at play. More context might help. I would suggest that "We traveled over hill and dale" is functionally different from the statement "We traveled over the hill and the dale" insofar as it seems to encode the plural generic category without having to use the plural form. Compare "We traveled over hills" or "We traveled over hills and dales" (the first of which is common, and the second of which sounds a bit stilted in my idiom). The elegance might be in the simplicity of using a complex for an inferred plurality, and thus precluding unless necessarily wanting specific reference. Also interesting is that it seems to me a single use of the definite article would be possible: "In that situation, the driver and passenger are equally liable." In this case, the second article is indeed ellipted, which may lend credence to the interpretation that when there is no deictic, it is ellipted, depending on whether context demands a specific or generic reference, perhaps.

Respondent 2: The nouns here are coordinated so that, although individual nouns are singular common count nouns and so individually would require determiners of some sort, the resulting construction is indefinite plural—hence the agreement pattern (plural), but also, the absence of "the". Notice that the inclusion of either definite or indefinite articles significantly changes the meaning in each case. So, "we travelled over hill and dale" means we travelled over some unspecified set of hills and dales; whereas "we travelled over the/a hill and dale" refers either to a known (def, previously mentioned) hill and dale or at least some specific individual hill and dale (indefinite, not previously

I am following the suggestion to continue WT:MOS#A grammatical mystery here. I can confirm that this phenomenon is common in German. Off the top of my head: in Bausch und Bogen verdammen (to damn lock, stock and barrell), Kopf und Kragen riskieren (lit. to risk neck and collar), von Kopf bis Fuß (lit. from head to foot), Haus und Hof verlieren (to lose house and home), mit Kind und Kegel (with kith and kin), mit Sack und Pack (with bag and baggage). These expressions are fossilised; you would only replace one of the nouns or swap them for comical effect. I have a strong feeling that these expressions are very old, and this seems to be corroborated by the alliterations and the fact that some of the constituents make no sense at all to most speakers who use the expressions (Bogen=bow, but Bausch? Kind=child, but Kegel=bastard has only survived in a few dialects). In some cases there are also fossilised variants that do have articles, such as vom (= von dem) Scheitel bis zur (= zu der) Sohle (lit. from the parting to the sole). This example feels like it's only a few hundred years old, from a time when the other pattern would not have been productive any more.

Here is my current guess, mixing testable predictions and untestable speculations:

• the pattern is an old Germanic one and should have been present already in Old English
• it has always been correlated with elevated/poetic speech
• its original use is to express a totality by giving two representative examples; to mark that they are thought of as a unit, the second article is omitted; since in OE the two nouns typically didn't have the same genus, the first article had to be omitted as well
• we typically don't use any articles if:
  • it is a fossilised idiom
  • we don't really care about the two specific nouns since they are just examples; we would not normally replace one of them to be more precise ("over mountain and dale", "over hill and river");
• we use an article, or two, or possessive pronouns, as appropriate, if:
  • we made up the expression on our own
  • the nouns actually stand for themselves ("let's not forget all the mountains and rivers that we would have to cross").

--Hans Adler (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans, this is helpful, although may not be the whole story. I need to absorb what you say. Tony (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Above: In my "idiolect" (college and university English), Nos. 2, 5, and 6 are equally unacceptable English; they are not "idiomatic" English; they are "colloquial" or "slang" English spoken (usually not written) by English speakers who are not familiar with the "rules" of English Grammar.

1. "College and university English" is not an idiolect.
2. No lect is slang, although some lects may have more slang than others.
3. Colloquial English is idiomatic English. (If it were not idiomatic, it would not be colloquial.)
4. Native speakers of English have complete familiarity with the rules of English grammar, although they may indeed be unfamiliar with the rules repeated by incurious prescriptive grammarians of English.

As any fule kno. Or at least anyone who has read intelligent descriptive (let alone theoretical) works about language reflecting trends since Jespersen or thereabouts.

Really, there is an awful lot of twaddle written above. (In addition to a lot of good or at least intriguingly chew-over-able stuff by Hans and Tony.) It reminds me of why I prefer not to hang around in the vicinity of MoS talk pages. -- Hoary (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the twaddle Hoary refers to lies under a click of the mouse, above. Hoary, I love your first three points; I do not agree with your fourth point. Tony (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think the fourth point is a bit problematic. And I read my "idiolect" (college and university English) as short for my "idiolect" (which was formed mostly by college and university English). --Hans Adler (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What, me worry? is now arguably a fossilized expression, thanks to Mad (the magazine). But the seemingly (if not actually) infinite number of combinations that can be created with the same syntax (e.g. What, him get through the day without a G&T?) are not fossilized expressions. I submit that a native speaker of anything like standard Aus, Brit, or US English would know the rule by which the pronoun after What is accusative -- without of course being able to express this as a rule. And this is of course not the kind of English that is taught at school or by parents. However, I would not be surprised if some of the (L1 English) ninnies of the kind overrepresented among those talk pages have been so impressed by worthless books on "style" as to insist that *What, she do the work on time is "correct" English. Jim Quinn's American Tongue and Cheek is just one accessible, intelligent book among several that address this stupidity (I believe that David Crystal has also written one); it should be better known. Yet those talk pages may provide a socially useful function by providing a place for "authoritarian personalities" to primp, preen, and get their jollies. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The end of my nose is ever so slightly turning upwards to reveal a flare of nostrils: the closest I ever came to Mad magazine as a 60s child was akin to the way people stand around a car accident gawking.<grin> I think your example is less likely to have arisen through a simple pattern of "What + accusative" than through one or both of these routes:

1. "What? Me? Worry?", in which the accusative "me" as a stand-alone is probably an antecedent (no proof of this, though). We have lots of signs that this might be the case; even Shakespeare, somewhere, I think—"It is me", not "It is I". (Halliday says to try "It am I" to see how ridiculous the contention is that the nominative must be used, part of the Latin truncheon English Grammar Schools hit the Germanic language with.)
2. "What, me worrying ? Here, the dreaded accusative noun + -ing" rears its head in one of its gawkier guises.

PS I've yet to address Ricardiana's entry above. Tony (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• This shoe, with the hole in it, is my mother, and this my father; a vengeance on't! there 'tis: now, sit, this staff is my sister, for, look you, she is as white as a lily and as small as a wand: this hat is Nan, our maid: I am the dog: no, the dog is himself, and I am the dog--Oh! the dog is me, and I am myself; ay, so, so. -- Shakespeare, Two Gentlemen of Verona
• All debts are cleared between you and I -- Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice
• So far had this innocent girl gone in jesting between her and I, and in talking that she would let him lie with her if he would but be kinder to me, that at last she let him lie with her in earnest; and so empty was I now of all principle, that I encouraged the doing it almost before my face. -- Defoe, Roxana
• Mrs. Norris called out, "Stay, stay, Fanny! what are you about? where are you going? don't be in such a hurry. Depend upon it, it is not you who are wanted; depend upon it, it is me" -- Austen, Mansfield Park

-- Hoary (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"between you and I", "between her and I"—ignorant. Yes, 40 years ago, there I sat in Latin classes while the sun shone outside, being drilled to say "The verb to be takes the same case after it as before." Pffff. Tony (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If Shakespeare and Defoe's writing manifested ignorance, then ignorance seems to served them rather well. Come come, Tony, you're a linguist; at least consider a dispassionate analysis. Huddleston and Pullum's CGEL can't do more than do the quickest of surveys of case in coordinative constructions (pp 462-63) but they do manage it without knee-jerkery. Incredibly, this investigation (PDF) is a mere honors thesis; its (presumably young) author puts us to shame. -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this interesting link. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I could identify at least a half-dozen barnstars appropriate for recognizing your hard work here. I settled on Diligence because I believe it to be one of your defining characteristics as a Misplaced Pages editor. I thank you for your efforts to reform various parts of Misplaced Pages (want to stop retroactively decommissioning FAs for lacking inline citations next?). You're a gentleman and a scholar. Laser brain (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look before you leap

Tony, if only to reduce the friction between us, please review situations fully before assuming the worst. I'm losing track of how many times you have posted damning comments about me only to find that those comments are completely incorrect when compared to the actual facts. Look, I don't care if you want to follow up on any concerns raised about me - that is certainly your right, and to be honest I'm always open to a fair examination of my record. (As I've repeatedly stated in my time here, I stand behind all of my edits, and I'll take responsibility for those actions.) If you find a genuine mistake that I have made, then by all means bring it to my attention and I'll address it. I'd prefer it if you tell me first, as I'm more than open to working with you (or anyone, for that matter) to either rectify a genuine error, or to allay their concerns. However, when you leap in and post erroneous assertions in a very public manner, without fully reviewing the incident (as you've actually admitted at AN/I), you end up weakening your own position. That doesn't help either of us. --Ckatz_spy 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz (Charles?), I've toned down your title, and I did look before I leapt. Were my comments "damning"? I thought they were a model of politeness, actually, and even hedged by saying "I may be wrong". I was critical of the user on three potential counts. You may be upset, but I was certainly not damning, was I? Please give me that much.

After a few metres of text have been written at ANI on it, and you still hadn't addressed the issue (no one has), is there a protocol (stated or implied) that I should talk-page or email you first? You know that I think a lot of your writing skills and strategic talent: I've said so. And I'm not necessarily against you here—not at all—but why don't you defend yourself, on the only topic that matters? I have to go to bed soon. I look forward to hearing from you (calmer); I certainly would like to collaborate with you, if there's ever a topic or project. I'm open to your suggestions. Tony (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the thoughtful and complete comments you've left on my talk page. You have provided excellent food for thought and I quite appreciate it. --Vassyana (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: US 41

I've given the article a copy edit. Please advise at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_41_in_Michigan/archive2 if there is anything left to do concerning your review of the article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Em dash vs colon

I asked another editor for feedback regarding the list of skin-related conditions, and he ended up changing all the em dashes to colons when introducing a list of items. After you introduced me to em dashes for list openings, I tend to prefer them over the colon. Would you recommending changing the colons back to em dashes? ---kilbad (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain (spaced) eN dashes are preferred. Top-right and bottom-left keys on a full Windows keyboard; opt-hyphen on a Mac.

• - hyphen
• – en dash
• — em dash Tony (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now: mid-sentence, not the left-hand opening of bullet-type lists. Please see my note on that talk page. Tony (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS quotation marks

Miguel Chavez, picking up where Darkfrog24 left off (Darkfrog24 was one of two or more users who Admin Rootology threatened to block for edit warring about the MOS's guideline for quotation marks), continues to restore, as the opening paragraph, the irrelevant, misleading, and incomplete discussion of British vs American English practices on this issue. I posted on Rootology's Talk page (User talk:Rootology#Quotation marks again!), but he hasn't answered and his Talk page warns that he might not be available to respond for awhile. I also responded to Chavez's response to you at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Grafting national sentiments onto an issue?. If I revert again, I'll be at 3RR, and I don't want to go there. Could you and some of your MOS experts help out on this one? Also, Darkfrog24 and Chavez are watering down the language of the long-standing guideline on logical quotation. They seem to think that 2 or 3 like-minded editors who spend all their waking hours arguing this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style constitute a consensus for change. Thanks for any help you can provide. Finell (Talk) 12:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your take, but ArbCom has recently expressed its concern at instability in the style guides. They should not be treated as sandboxes, and I'm pleased to see that the matter is likely to be hashed out in the appropriate place: the talk page. It's a pity that some editors felt emboldened to lash out and edit the style guide itself, when they knew it would be controversial. Tony (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The main MOS page is now full protected indefinitely because of the edit warring on this issue. I have proposed that the edit warriors be blocked instead. This is what Rootology agreed he would do if this edit war resumed, rather than protect the page. I welcome comments from you and other MOS experts at User talk:Rootology#Quotation marks again! Thanks. Finell (Talk) 03:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't me. The only change I made during that time period was here: . I had made some edits changing the indicative to imperative--something that we'd already discussed on the talk page, which the Duke of Waltham reversed. In his edit summary, however, he referred to MChavez's addition of the new paragraph, not the change of tense. I figured that he'd hit my changes by mistake and put them back. I've also tossed Duke of W a talk page message asking him if this is indeed what happened, but he has yet to reply.

Frankly, guys, I took one look at the back-and-forth over whether or not the paragraph should be there and decided to take no on-page part in it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on your FAC comment

Tony, I am not sure what you mean by this statement "WP's job is not to repeat the iron-fisted control over ideology of whichever regime is in power in the Vatican in what needs to be a scupulously NPOV account." I am not sure what you want to see in the article to address this statement. The Church teaching on the Commandments is almost entirely unchanged throughout its history, it is not the result of different "regimes" but a continuous "regime". Minor historical events pertaining to each commandment are included within each commandment section, for example the section on birth control states that it predates Christianity and has been continuously condemned throughout history by all Christian denominations until the Church of England OK'd it in 1930s. That section also includes mention of criticism of the Church's ban on condoms especially in countries where AIDS is a problem. I added a sentence to the lead that is referenced to the BBC and states the number of practicing Catholics is unknown. I hope this addresses your concern. If not, can you please be more specific? Thanks, NancyHeise 02:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, on second thought, I think you may have missed all of the areas where we have included criticisms. Please see my list I made for you on the FAC page. I was helped to satisfy NPOV by my non-Catholic fellow Misplaced Pages editors and reviewers Richard and Brianbolton. Karanacs also chipped in there for a while. If you can think of any criticisms we have omitted, please let us know because to our knowledge, we addressed all of them. NancyHeise 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll return within a few days. Tony (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your message, Tony. No problem at all. I'm traveling out of the U.S. for next 2 weeks, using my hosts' laptop sporadically. I may check back in here after I return. Enjoy! :-)

Albert Bridge FAC

Replied to you on the FAC. Regarding getting a copyeditor, I'm trying to avoid it where possible; this is #6 in a series of 20 on Thames bridges, and I've deliberately started with the fairly uncomplicated ones. I suspect I'm going to need to call in as many favors as possible when it comes to cleaning up London Bridge and Tower Bridge – the former has to cover 2,000 years of history without veering too far off-topic, and the latter will unavoidably need lengthy diversions into hydraulic engineering, comparisons of Norman and Gothic Revival architecture, and a brief history of shipping design. With those two in mind, I'm intentionally not pestering Malleus and co as regards these shorter ones.

I'm aware that a lot of this one is awkwardly worded, but in many parts I can't see an obvious way round it. Because Ordish–Lefeuvre Principle is something that no reader could reasonably be expected to know, a lot of dry technical material has to be written out in far more detail than the rest of the series; as I said to Ottava, "brilliant refreshing prose" and "flat wrought iron bars attached at one end to the bridge deck and linked at the other end to octagonal support columns by wire ropes composed of 1,000 ⁄₁₀-inch diameter wires" are incompatiable. – iridescent 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom, WP and the media

• The NY Times on the Scientology case It seems like a reasonable outcome for the time being.
• The NY Times on "anyone can edit" My view is that four days should be seven or 14 WRT semi-protection. And most admins are in their 20s? I suspected so.
• The NY Times On the Essjay fraud scandal At some stage, we'll need to insist on real, verifiable identities for admins and others with oversight roles. Mark my words.
• Colbert satirises ArbCom on US TV I believe some arbs are chuffed with the publicity; however, it makes us all look like fools. Real names please, not silly ones, if you're going to represent WP in the limelight. Tony (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "anyone can edit", did you mean this NY Times article? --Philcha (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now amended. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You might like to add The Independent on "accuracy vs anyone can edit". --Philcha (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting and funny. At the opening, it shows the typical threat represented by WP and the Internet generally to the professional of journalism. Tony (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Academic excellence

Ling Nut (permanent link here) has made these comments.

I would say that writing and research are hard work. I would love to say that writing and research are hard work. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that my idea of "hard work" is vastly different from many other editors' idea of what those words mean. The fundamental problem with Misplaced Pages – and it is a problem that our reliance on policies, guidelines and consensus only exacerbates – is that far too few Wikipedians understand the hard work involved in writing and researching well.

There is some relevant information in the article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and the book Dumbest Generation.
In a global society which is collectively declining intellectually, physically, morally, and socially, and in which people often overestimate achievements of academic excellence, altruistic excellence, artistic excellence, and athletic excellence in themselves and in others, there is a challenge to find the gentle but effective means to bring people to an adequate awareness of the shocking realities.
-- Wavelength (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --

ABC Radio National on cyber stalking, libel and privacy: this will be a growing issue for WPians

Cyber stalking and online libel, 2 June 2009: audio file downloadable for two weeks; transcript available permanently.

Oh, what a tangled web. I firmly believe that using one's own name on WP should be the norm, not the exception, especially for those in a position of power such as admins and arbitrators. However, we must at some stage evolve policies and procedures for dealing with stalking and privacy on the site. The law in anglophone jurisdictions is clearly not keeping pace with the evolution of anti-social behaviour on the Internet.

A key problem is defining where the boundary lies beyond which behaviour is stalking, whether on- or off-wiki. "... if you look at each individual piece of conduct, it seems innocuous out of context, it's the cumulative effect." "The essence of it is that there's an intention ... to cause physical and mental harm, or for the victim to fear for their own safety or the safety of others." Stalking is a legal term, but cyber stalking is not. Does cyber stalking refer to email, placing information on the Internet, or unauthorised access to a computer? The US "requires what's called a credible threat, typically, because of their First Amendment, free speech protection. So they have much tighter stalking laws", which make it harder to prove an offence.

This causes me to wonder about the following issues:

1. Are our perceptions of the risk of using our real names exaggerated? (I certainly hope they are, but I'm unsure.)
2. To what extent is WP/WikiMedia itself exposed to legal liability where WPians are stalked or otherwise suffer unreasonable invasion of privacy, in either on- or related off-wiki communications?
3. Should WPians avoid on-wiki commentary on their employer, and to what extent are WPians' track records used against them by prospective and current employers?
4. To what extent are we exposed to email hacking by communicating with other WPians by email?
5. Is there a case for appointing one or more specialist admins to manage this issue, and should a centralised register of stalking patterns, suspected or confirmed, be maintained? It appears to require particular specialisation beyond the standard CU and Oversight functions. Tony (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. No, they aren't exaggerated, there are countless examples of it, recorded both onwiki and offwiki. There are actually websites dedicated to helping people do those very things.
2. No liability whatsoever to the WMF, there are disclaimers at the bottom of every page to this effect. US law would hold them as a service provider who only has a duty to not give out information, which the WMF respects rather strongly with its policies.
3. Depends who the employer is, WP is a public site indexed on Google. Anything said can be found and used according to the laws of your country.
4. Very small risk of email hacking, no more than hacking if someone gets your business card.
5. I've handled about half a dozen cases that ended successfully for the most part. The ArbCom asked the community in both WP:BADSITES and WP:CHILD to address the issue, however the community could not come to agreement and rejected steps beyond oversighting personal information inadvertently disclosed. MBisanz 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, MBisanz. No matter what the disclaimer, I believe this aspect of the law is in a state of flux, and the multi-jurisdictional aspect of the Internet still hasn't been resolved in the law. There is already the phenomenon of shopping for the jurisdiction with the strictest libel laws to sue the ISP/author. (I think two of your responses were out of order: I switched them.) Tony (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony, it's certainly a valid question to raise. Would using real names help with credibility? Probably, especially if users knew that the IDs were confirmed by the Foundation, and that there was a one-editor, one-login policy. However, when you factor in the complete lack of privacy, it changes the game. Pages are archived across the Internet, often in places you might never expect it, and editors who take on more controversial roles can easily become targets. A search on the names of some of the more active admins can demonstrate this, and (speaking from personal experience) it isn't fun to deal with a cyberstalker. I think you might lose a large portion of the admin corps if real names were required, not because users are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions, but because they are not prepared to run the risk of a clash moving off-site and into the real world. (You and I might disagree strongly about aspects of the MoS, but we're unlikely to take it off-site. The hatred involved in some vandalism, however, and in some of the bitter and protracted disputes that arise over nationalism, religion, and other such topics is entirely different.)

Perhaps an alternative would be a system where users register with their real names, but edit via their chosen screen name. For example, you might register with the Foundation under your full real name, along with some real-world verifiable contact information. You would edit under your chosen user name, being allowed only one, and the real-world information would never be connected on-site. That way, users would know that the Foundation has verified everyone, without having to unnecessarily expose your personal details. --Ckatz_spy 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)