From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun  1 17:40:29 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 1 Jun 2008 17:40:29 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/1/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1212342029.10.32466.m56@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 1, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20080601/e1dbb8e0/attachment.html>

From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 18:15:07 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 18:15:07 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
Message-ID: <g1uovb+herc@eGroups.com>

Got into a discussion at Orson Scott Card's Hatrack forums.
We were discussing a completely different subject and at the
bottom of my post, I added that I was going to go back and fix
the "typo's" in my previous post.

Well that certainly opened a can of worms. Some one made a cute
comment about biting their tongue over my use of "typo's". I 
then inquire as to why they were 'biting there tongue', and
that started a long debate over whether "typo's" was indeed
correct or not.

They, the others in the discussion, insisted that 'typos' was
the correct plural of 'typo'. I never really disputed that,
but insisted that "typo's" was a valid contraction of 
'typographical errors'. 

Now, without a doubt, 'typos' is the more common usage by a
wide margin, but it being common doesn't make me wrong.

Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a
valid contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?

Sorry...it's just one of those things I can't let go of. 

steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 19:11:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:11:46 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g1uovb+herc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1us9i+s1ch@eGroups.com>

Steve wrote:
>
> Got into a discussion at Orson Scott Card's Hatrack forums. We were
discussing a completely different subject and at the bottom of my
post, I added that I was going to go back and fix the "typo's" in my
previous post.
> 
> Well that certainly opened a can of worms. Some one made a cute
comment about biting their tongue over my use of "typo's". <snip>
> Now, without a doubt, 'typos' is the more common usage by a wide
margin, but it being common doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a valid
contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?

Carol responds:
Sorry, Steve. "Typo's" is not a contraction for "typographical
errors." It's the possessive form of "typo."

BTW, I'm going to be offline for awhile. Minor computer problems that
need to be looked at before they become major. I *may* be able to
borrow a computer, but, if not, I won't be posting for a few days.

Carol, not sure which is worse, car trouble or computer trouble, but
one following the other is a major nuisance!




From minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com  Sun Jun  1 20:12:01 2008
From: minnesotatiffany at hotmail.com (Tiffany B. Clark)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:12:01 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g1us9i+s1ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1uvqh+fojj@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
>
> Carol, not sure which is worse, car trouble or computer trouble, but
> one following the other is a major nuisance!

Tiffany:

How about both at once?  It happened to my sister, Brenda in March, she 
was not injured, but involved in a car wreck with another driver in 
Mpls (Minneapolis).  She had a laptop with her & the other driver was 
found to be over the legal limit for drinking & driving.  The laptop, 
which was in its case was completely toasted & both cars were totaled 
out.  She's still getting over such a burden at once of having to 
replace a car & laptop.  She's in her freshman year in college as well, 
so the financial burdens were like Mount Everest for her. 





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  1 20:42:05 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 20:42:05 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <762F60D19FB142AF81132B094C891146@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com>

Lee Storm wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36724>:

<< I know I'll never see a copy in a format I can read, i.e.
plain text, Word, audio. I'm sure that The Bard will never go audio,
either. >>

Amazon has apparently detailed summaries of the Bard's tales in html
plain text at
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_6057542_1?ie=UTF8&docId=1000180871&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=1M07SNKSCG40WNMJZTRY&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_p=377812001&pf_rd_i=1000179911#review1>.

To get there, start at <http://www.amazon.com/beedlebard> and click on
the first 'read more' you come to.

All sighted people get that you don't is Amazon's photographs of the
silver and jewel front cover and of some of JKR's drawings.

----------------------------------------

In case anyone has read this far, this group sometimes talks about the
 War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic device for which
is red and which is white? When I look it up and find that Lancaster
is red and York is white, I can remember it for about 3 days. Then the
next time the subject comes up, I have to look it up again.

As Geoff pointed out, Lancaster and York are two counties that are
right next to each other up north by the border with Scotland. So I
was wondering why they were fighting each other for the throne in
London way down south.

Wikipedia helpfully told me that John of Gaunt was given the title
Duke of Lancaster by his father Edward III in 1362, after he had
inherited ownership of Lancaster (the real estate and a title Earl of
Lancaster) from his father-in-law in 1361. The very same article calls
John of Gaunt the 1st Duke of Lancaster and calls his father-in-law
Henry of Grosmont the 1st Duke of Lancaster (given the title in 1351).
All these things one finds when merely checking whether the House of
Lancaster had any connection with Lancaster besides the name. Did the
House of York have any connection with York?








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 22:09:07 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:09:07 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1v6m3+hdai@eGroups.com>

> Catlady asks:
> War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic device for which
> is red and which is white? When I look it up and find that Lancaster
> is red and York is white, I can remember it for about 3 days. Then 
> the next time the subject comes up, I have to look it up again.


Mike proposes:
York begins with a "why" as does "whyte".




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jun  1 23:19:00 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:19:00 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g1uovb+herc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1vap4+fb26@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> Got into a discussion at Orson Scott Card's Hatrack forums.
> We were discussing a completely different subject and at the
> bottom of my post, I added that I was going to go back and fix
> the "typo's" in my previous post.

<snip>

> Now, without a doubt, 'typos' is the more common usage by a
> wide margin, but it being common doesn't make me wrong.
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a
> valid contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?

Geoff:
I would agree partly with Carol that "typo's" would be the
 possessive form of "typo" but it could also be the contracted form 
of '"typo is'". For example: "His typo's completely changing the 
sense of the statement."

No way could it be a plural.




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 23:24:29 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:24:29 -0000
Subject: War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1vb3d+bs7i@eGroups.com>

> Catlady:
> In case anyone has read this far, this group sometimes talks 
> about the War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic 
> device for which is red and which is white? 

Goddlefrood:

There's only two things to remember, so I doubt there's an 
existing mnemonic. Yorkshire is split into ridings, so if 
you remember Little Red Riding Hood and think that she does 
NOT come from Yorkshire, but from Lancashire, that may assist.

Of course, it may not.

> Catlady:
> As Geoff pointed out, Lancaster and York are two counties 
> that are right next to each other up north by the border 
> with Scotland. 

Goddlefrood:

I doubt if the erudite Geoff did say this as both counties 
do not border Scotland at all. There's the small matter of 
Northumberland and Cumbria in between.

> Catlady:
> So I was wondering why they were fighting each other for 
> the throne in London way down south.

Goddlefrood:

London has been England's capital for a very long time, and is 
the seat of its Kings and Queens, no real mystery about that, 
is there? Lancashire and Yorkshire are both English counties.

> Catlady:
> Did the House of York have any connection with York?

Goddlefrood:

As with the Duchy of Lancaster, the House of York had its 
ostensible seat at York. The current Dule of York is Prince 
Andrew, although he is not the one of the 10,000 men with 
the penchant for marching them up and down hills.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jun  1 23:35:24 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:35:24 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g1vbns+ui7d@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Lee Storm wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36724>:

> In case anyone has read this far, this group sometimes talks about the
>  War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic device for which
> is red and which is white? When I look it up and find that Lancaster
> is red and York is white, I can remember it for about 3 days. Then the
> next time the subject comes up, I have to look it up again.
> 
> As Geoff pointed out, Lancaster and York are two counties that are
> right next to each other up north by the border with Scotland. So I
> was wondering why they were fighting each other for the throne in
> London way down south.
> 
> Wikipedia helpfully told me that John of Gaunt was given the title
> Duke of Lancaster by his father Edward III in 1362, after he had
> inherited ownership of Lancaster (the real estate and a title Earl of
> Lancaster) from his father-in-law in 1361. The very same article calls
> John of Gaunt the 1st Duke of Lancaster and calls his father-in-law
> Henry of Grosmont the 1st Duke of Lancaster (given the title in 1351).
> All these things one finds when merely checking whether the House of
> Lancaster had any connection with Lancaster besides the name. Did the
> House of York have any connection with York?

Geoff:
The Wars of the Roses, between the two houses, erupted in 1455. At the 
Battle of Northampton 1460, the Yorkist army under the Earl of Warwick 
captured King Henry VI.

King Henry VI suffered a recurring bout of madness and Richard Duke of 
York was appointed Regent of England. In October 1460 the Act of Accord 
named Richard, Duke of York was named as  successor to the throne, 
disinheriting Henry's six year old son Prince Edward.

However, at the Battle of Wakefield, Richard was killed and his son, Edward 
of York, now pressed his claim to the throne of England and in March 1461
was declared King Edward IV in London.

The easy way to remember is alphabetical. Lancaster comes before York and 
red comes before white. Speaking as someone who was brought up in 
Lancashire, I would not describe the two counties as being right up north 
by the Scottish border. Although they are well to the north, Cumbria lies 
between Lancashire and the border while Durham and Northumberland lie 
between York and the Scots.






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 23:35:45 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:35:45 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g1us9i+s1ch@eGroups.com>
References: <g1us9i+s1ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48433251.2090704@yahoo.com>

Steve wrote:

Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a valid
contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?

Carol responds:

Sorry, Steve. "Typo's" is not a contraction for "typographical
errors." It's the possessive form of "typo."

Now me:

Or a contraction of "typo is". But Carol's right here. The apostrophe is 
used to mark either omission or possession, but not plural. The correct 
plural for "typo" is "typos".

On the other hand, Steve's right in that the abuse of 's as a plural HAS 
seemingly become common in the last generation. I'm of three minds on 
this: the descriptivist in me finds it an interesting phenomenon. The 
proscriptivist in me cringes,  blames it on the decline of Western 
education, and sees in it a harbinger of the ultimate collapse of human 
society. And tthen he historian in me says hey, relax! People have been 
abusing apostrophes for centuries. Even the Bard did it.

CJ

P.S. OK, I made up that last bit. I have absolutely no evidence that 
Shakespeare ever abused an apostrophe. But he WAS notorious for abusing 
what we moderns consider proper rules of grammar.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  1 23:56:51 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:56:51 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re:  War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1vb3d+bs7i@eGroups.com>
References: <g1vb3d+bs7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48433743.3060103@yahoo.com>

Goddlefrood:

> Yorkshire is split into ridings, so if you remember 
 > Little Red Riding Hood and think that she does
> NOT come from Yorkshire, but from Lancashire, that 
 > may assist.

Huh? Now I AM confused. Yorkshire has "ridings" but not "riding hood"? I 
thought Little Red Riding Hood (her red hood at least) came from France.

I just think of a Yorkshire terrier. And for those of you who are about 
to tell me Yorkies are black, not white, I will point out that's only 
the pet-quality dog. A true show-quality Yorkie will be blond to light 
grey (aka silver).

But now I've forgotten. What was it we were trying to remember, again?

CJ




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 00:33:36 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:33:36 -0000
Subject: War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <48433743.3060103@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g1vf50+301i@eGroups.com>

> CJ:
> Huh? Now I AM confused. Yorkshire has "ridings" but not 
> "riding hood"? 

Goddlefrood:

The short answer is: 'yawn'. The longer version is far too 
convoluted to get into.

> CJ:

> I thought Little Red Riding Hood (her red hood at least) came 
> from France.

Goddlefrood:

Why, because Charles Perrault recorded the fairy tale from an 
older tradition, perchance? There are versions of the story 
from different parts of Europe, but it's most likely the tale
originated in Germany, or ehat today we call Germany, where 
another colour altogether is associated with forests and 
cakes.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 06:42:43 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 06:42:43 -0000
Subject: War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <48433743.3060103@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g204p3+kn2e@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Goddlefrood: 
> > Yorkshire is split into ridings, so if you remember 
>  > Little Red Riding Hood and think that she does
> > NOT come from Yorkshire, but from Lancashire, that 
>  > may assist.

CJ: 
> Huh? Now I AM confused. Yorkshire has "ridings" but not "riding hood"? I 
> thought Little Red Riding Hood (her red hood at least) came from France.

Geoff:
That's because "riding" in the Yorkshire sense has got nothing to do 
with sitting on a horse.
 
Ridings are historical administrative districts of Yorkshire. The word is 
derived from the Viking "threthingr" meaning a third part and, as you 
well may guess there are three Ridings, North, East and West.

There was never a South Riding but there is a novel called "South Riding" 
which enjoyed some success as a TV adaptation thirty years or so ago.

CJ:
> I just think of a Yorkshire terrier. And for those of you who are about 
> to tell me Yorkies are black, not white, I will point out that's only 
> the pet-quality dog. A true show-quality Yorkie will be blond to light 
> grey (aka silver).
> 
> But now I've forgotten. What was it we were trying to remember, again?

Geoff:
I don't think I've ever seen a black Yorkie. I always visualise them in the
colours you quote.

Right, Goodlefrood, that's your dose of erudition for the day.
:-)




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 10:05:10 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:05:10 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g20gkm+ijdf@eGroups.com>

> catlady:

> Wikipedia helpfully told me that John of Gaunt was given the title
> Duke of Lancaster by his father Edward III in 1362, after he had
> inherited ownership of Lancaster (the real estate and a title Earl
of
> Lancaster) from his father-in-law in 1361. The very same article
calls
> John of Gaunt the 1st Duke of Lancaster and calls his father-in-law
> Henry of Grosmont the 1st Duke of Lancaster (given the title in
1351).
> All these things one finds when merely checking whether the House of
> Lancaster had any connection with Lancaster besides the name. Did
the
> House of York have any connection with York?

a_svirn:
Not much. The Duke of York political and financial influence was
inherited from his maternal Uncle, the Earl of March ? together with
his claim to the crown of England (and France) and his heraldic white
rose. York's own badge was falcon and fetterlock, not the rose.
March's estates were mostly in the Welsh March as well as Wales and
Ireland. When York's eldest son (the future king Edward IV) was
created the Earl of March he adopted the white rose as his badge. As
for the red rose, it was a later Tudor invention. The Tudors kind of
united both houses and came up (for propaganda purposes) with
the "Tudor Rose" a combination of the white rose of York and the
almost entirely fictional the red rose of Lancaster. (The heraldic
device of the House of Lancaster was a chain of interlinked SS, not
the rose.) The symbolism of white and red roses proved appealing and
was popularised by Shakespeare in his famous scene in the Temple
Garden (King Herny IV-First Part), and much later Walter Scott coined
the term "the war of Roses".
a_svirn





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 12:39:16 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:39:16 -0000
Subject: The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g20gkm+ijdf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g20plk+7ke2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:

a_svirn:
> Not much. The Duke of York political and financial influence was
> inherited from his maternal Uncle, the Earl of March ? together with
> his claim to the crown of England (and France) and his heraldic white
> rose. York's own badge was falcon and fetterlock, not the rose.
> March's estates were mostly in the Welsh March as well as Wales and
> Ireland. When York's eldest son (the future king Edward IV) was
> created the Earl of March he adopted the white rose as his badge. As
> for the red rose, it was a later Tudor invention. The Tudors kind of
> united both houses and came up (for propaganda purposes) with
> the "Tudor Rose" a combination of the white rose of York and the
> almost entirely fictional the red rose of Lancaster. 

Geoff:
Hm. I offer into the court the following evidence....

Excerpts quoted from: www.lancashirevillages.com/redrose

Lancashire's Red Rose is an official variety, known as the Red Rose of 
Lancashire, but it is more accurately named as the Red Rose of Lancaster. 
Extracts from Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs gives "Rosa Gallica 
Officinalis", the "Red Rose of Lancaster" as a small shrub producing 
richly fragrant, semi-double, rosy crimson flowers with prominent 
yellow anthers.

Rosa gallica officinalis,was possibly the first cultivated rose and is the 
first and the most famous of the Gallica roses. Originally a species 
rose, it grew wild in central Asia and was first cultivated by the 
ancient Persians and Egyptians, and later adopted by the Greeks 
and the Romans. The Romans introduced it in Gaul (later to become 
France) where it assumed the named Rosa gallica.

The Red Rose at Lancaster has a long and distinguished history which 
is intertwined with the House of Lancaster, the War of the Roses, the 
Monarchy, the County Palatine of Lancaster and the development of 
the County of Lancashire. It was first adopted as an heraldic device 
by Edmund, First Earl of Lancaster and became the emblem of 
Lancashire, and of England as a whole, following the Battle of 
Bosworth Field in 1485.

And quoted from: www.yorkshirehistory.com/yorkshirerose.htm

A Complete Guide to Heraldry by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies (pp 269)                

"The use of the Rose as a political emblem may be traced to the wars 
between the rival Houses of York and Lancaster, the former of which 
used the device of a white rose, while a red one was the badge of the 
other, and these came to be blazoned occasionally as the Rose of York 
and Lancaster respectively. They are said to have been first assumed 
by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his brother Edmund, Duke 
of York. Both these roses were sometimes surrounded with rays, and 
termed en soleil, and later on they were frequently conjoined."

Hardly fictional....






From n2fgc at arrl.net  Mon Jun  2 13:33:15 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:33:15 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War
 of Roses
In-Reply-To: <g1vbns+ui7d@eGroups.com>
References: <g1v1it+j1fe@eGroups.com> <g1vbns+ui7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004D6C0531B14DFC86420A25FF277B2A@FRODO>

[Geoff]:
| >
| > Lee Storm wrote in
| > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36724>:
| 
| > In case anyone has read this far, this group sometimes 
| talks about the
| >  War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic device for which
<SNIP>
[Lee]:
Never wrote anything of the kind...there's a mis-attrib someplace there.

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 16:21:17 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:21:17 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses
In-Reply-To: <004D6C0531B14DFC86420A25FF277B2A@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g216lt+cj3m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" 
<n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [Geoff]:
> | >
> | > Lee Storm wrote in
> | > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36724>:
> | 
> | > In case anyone has read this far, this group sometimes 
> | talks about the
> | >  War of the Roses. Does anyone have a good mnemonic device for which
> <SNIP>
> [Lee]:
> Never wrote anything of the kind...there's a mis-attrib someplace there.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lee :-)


Geoff:
True. It seems that Catlady didn't attribute her reply in 367239 and I 
read it as a continuation of yours.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 16:21:39 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:21:39 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <48433251.2090704@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g216mj+snjs@eGroups.com>

> Lee Kaiwen wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, Steve's right in that the abuse of 's as a 
> plural HAS seemingly become common in the last generation. I'm of 
> three minds on this: the descriptivist in me finds it an
> interesting phenomenon. The proscriptivist in me cringes <snip>

Mike:
This makes me wonder about the increasing use of 's as the possessive 
with names or words ending in s already; as in James's. The 
descriptivist must admire the use since the pronunciation of the 
possessive would be Jamesez. Yet your prescriptivist must also cringe 
at this violation of the rules.

I'm of two minds here; I know what the rules is and naturally desire 
to follow it. But the 's is such a good written description of the 
pronunciation that I have been oft tempted to and actually have used 
it. 

And I always wondered what one does with a surname that ends in s. 
That is, if there is a James Dents and all the little Dents. How 
would one distinguish between one of the Dents owning something as 
opposed to the entire family owning it? If I were to say "Dents' 
automobile" am I referring to it as James' car or the Dents' family 
car? 

I supposed I could just call it the "Dense car", though James may not 
appreciate that. ;D

Mike





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 16:30:38 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:30:38 -0000
Subject: The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g20plk+7ke2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2177e+53vb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> 
> a_svirn:
> > Not much. The Duke of York political and financial influence was
> > inherited from his maternal Uncle, the Earl of March ? together 
with
> > his claim to the crown of England (and France) and his heraldic 
white
> > rose. York's own badge was falcon and fetterlock, not the rose.
> > March's estates were mostly in the Welsh March as well as Wales 
and
> > Ireland. When York's eldest son (the future king Edward IV) was
> > created the Earl of March he adopted the white rose as his badge. 
As
> > for the red rose, it was a later Tudor invention. The Tudors kind 
of
> > united both houses and came up (for propaganda purposes) with
> > the "Tudor Rose" a combination of the white rose of York and the
> > almost entirely fictional the red rose of Lancaster. 
> 
> Geoff:
> Hm. I offer into the court the following evidence....
> 
> Excerpts quoted from: www.lancashirevillages.com/redrose
> 
> Lancashire's Red Rose is an official variety, known as the Red Rose 
of 
> Lancashire, but it is more accurately named as the Red Rose of 
Lancaster. 
> Extracts from Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs gives "Rosa 
Gallica 
> Officinalis", the "Red Rose of Lancaster" as a small shrub 
producing 
> richly fragrant, semi-double, rosy crimson flowers with prominent 
> yellow anthers.
> 
> Rosa gallica officinalis,was possibly the first cultivated rose and 
is the 
> first and the most famous of the Gallica roses. Originally a 
species 
> rose, it grew wild in central Asia and was first cultivated by the 
> ancient Persians and Egyptians, and later adopted by the Greeks 
> and the Romans. The Romans introduced it in Gaul (later to become 
> France) where it assumed the named Rosa gallica.
> 
> The Red Rose at Lancaster has a long and distinguished history 
which 
> is intertwined with the House of Lancaster, the War of the Roses, 
the 
> Monarchy, the County Palatine of Lancaster and the development of 
> the County of Lancashire. It was first adopted as an heraldic 
device 
> by Edmund, First Earl of Lancaster and became the emblem of 
> Lancashire, and of England as a whole, following the Battle of 
> Bosworth Field in 1485.
> 
> And quoted from: www.yorkshirehistory.com/yorkshirerose.htm
> 
> A Complete Guide to Heraldry by Arthur Charles Fox-Davies (pp 
269)                
> 
> "The use of the Rose as a political emblem may be traced to the 
wars 
> between the rival Houses of York and Lancaster, the former of which 
> used the device of a white rose, while a red one was the badge of 
the 
> other, and these came to be blazoned occasionally as the Rose of 
York 
> and Lancaster respectively. They are said to have been first 
assumed 
> by John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his brother Edmund, Duke 
> of York. Both these roses were sometimes surrounded with rays, and 
> termed en soleil, and later on they were frequently conjoined."
> 
> Hardly fictional....
>

a_svirn:
Said by whom? These formulas "is said to have been" were usually 
employed when either later authors made something up, or contemporary 
ones wanted to disclaim all responsibility for whatever they were 
saying. The Red Rose of Lancaster might have some connection with the 
*duchy* of Lancaster, had but it had never ever been the heraldic 
device of the *House* of Lancaster. Neither John of Gaunt, nor any 
single one of Lancastrian kings used it as a personal badge. They 
used SS chains mostly and some other devices as signs of their 
livery. Edmund's badge was falcon and fetlock. His grandson Richard, 
once he had inherited the March estate, used the white rose 
occasionally, but mostly it was Richard's son Edward's (Edward IV) 
device. (And, characteristically, when Edward IV created his second 
son Richard the Duke of York the falcon emblem devolved to the boy 
together with the title.) Edwards's father used for the mast the 
falcon badge, and it was the York Falcon that was emblazoned all over 
London during his Protectorate. 
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 16:54:29 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:54:29 -0000
Subject: The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g20plk+7ke2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g218k5+79b3@eGroups.com>

> Geoff:
> Both these roses were sometimes surrounded with rays, and 
> termed en soleil, and later on they were frequently conjoined."

a_svirn:
This is highly unlikely. As far as I know, there was never such thing 
as *red* rose en soleil. And if there was, it hadn't anything to do 
with the House of Lancaster.  For the good reason that the *white* rose 
en soleil originated from an actual historic episode: Edward IV (then 
the 18-year-old earl of March) first ever military victory at Mortimer 
Cross. His army was terrified by the appearance of the "three suns", an 
atmospheric optical phenomenon called parhelion. March then sweettalked 
his men into believing that it is actually a good omen, and was proved 
right ? the Lancastrian host lost spectacularly. Ever since then he 
used "sun in splendor" as his emblem as well as the white rose and 
sometimes combined them in the rose en soleil. I know no such story 
about Lancastrian red roses. 




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 17:29:39 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:29:39 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <48433251.2090704@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> 
> Anyone care to weigh in on whether "typo's" is or is not a 
> valid contraction of 'typographical errors'? ...Carol?
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> Sorry, Steve. "Typo's" is not a contraction for "typographical
> errors." It's the possessive form of "typo."
>
 
> Now me (Lee):
> 
> Or a contraction of "typo is". But Carol's right here. The
> apostrophe is used to mark either omission or possession, but
> not plural. The correct plural for "typo" is "typos".
> 

bboyminn:

But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
"s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 

Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international'. The "'l"
logically doesn't make it plural, it simply says that between
the "t" and the "l" several letters have been left out. In
other words, it is a contraction. 

In my case, my use of "'s" says that several letters have been
left out between the 'o' and the 's'. I'm not pluralizing the
phrase because the phrase is already plural.

So, where do we stand now?

Also note that I searched Google for "typo's" and found
325,000 instances, which admittedly pales by comparison to
a search for 'typos', but it says I'm not only one. Also
note that one of those instances was National Public Radio. 

Certainly, as my search shows, "typo's" is not common, but
again the question at hand is not whether "'s" pluralizes
anything, but whether "typo's" is a valid contraction for 
a plural phrase that already ends in "s"?

In the other thread, someone said they can't imagine why I
chose this hill to die on. I claimed I was only wounded but
expected to make a full recovery. Time will tell.

Steve/bboyminn




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Mon Jun  2 17:36:25 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:36:25 -0000
Subject: Noah's Ark
Message-ID: <g21b2p+njsm@eGroups.com>

I think you will all appreciate ths especially the fellow Brits

Jayne
LOL

In the year 2008 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in 
England ,
and said:
"Once again, the earth has become wicked and over-populated, and I see
the end of all flesh before me. Build another Ark and save two of 
every
living thing along with a few good humans." 

He gave Noah the CAD drawings, saying: "You have 6 months to build the
Ark before I will start the unending rain for 40 days and 40 nights." 

Six months later, the Lord looked down and saw Noah weeping in his 
yard,
but no Ark. 

"Noah!" He roared, "I'm about to start the rain! Where is the Ark ?" 

"Forgive me, Lord," begged Noah, "but things have changed. I needed
Building Regulations Approval and I've been arguing with the Fire
Brigade about the need for a sprinkler system. 

My neighbours claim that I should have obtained planning permission 
for building the Ark in my garden because it is development of the 
site, 
even though in my view it is a temporary structure. 

We had to then go to appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision. 

Then the Department of Transport demanded a bond be posted for the
future costs of moving power lines and other overhead obstructions to
clear the passage for the Ark 's move to the sea. I told them that the
sea would be coming to us, but they would hear nothing of it. 

Getting the wood was another problem. All the decent trees have Tree
Preservation Orders on them and we live in a Site of Special 
Scientific
Interest set up in order to protect the spotted owl. I tried to 
convince
the environmentalists that I needed the wood to save the owls - but 
no go! 

When I started gathering the animals, the RSPCA sued me. They insisted
that I was confining wild animals against their will. They argued the
accommodation was too restrictive, and it was cruel and inhumane to 
put
so many animals in a confined space. 

Then the County Council, the Environment Agency and the Rivers 
Authority
ruled that I couldn't build the Ark until they'd conducted an 
environmental
impact study on your proposed flood. 

I'm still trying to resolve a complaint with the Equal Opportunities 
Commission 
on how many disabled carpenters I'm supposed to hire for my building 
team. 
The trades unions say I can't use my sons. They insist I have to hire 
only accredited
workers with Ark-building experience. 

To make matters worse, Customs and Excise seized all my assets, 
claiming
I'm trying to leave the country illegally with endangered species. 

So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to 
finish
this Ark. " 

Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow
stretched across the sky. 

Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to
destroy the world?" 

"No," said the Lord. "The British government are beating me to it." 







From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Mon Jun  2 18:14:37 2008
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:14:37 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
References: <48433251.2090704@yahoo.com> <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0806021114y48bb27b4r6fe65efd5e8e1824@mail.gmail.com>

bboyminn:
> But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
> anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
> "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'.
>>> SNIP <<<
> So, where do we stand now?

Ali:
Contractions such as gov't or int'l is common enough to be accepted as
grammatically correct (though stylistically, I wouldn't put that in
any formal writing).  Typo's, on the other hand, is often incorrectly
used to mean typos, not the contraction you're referring to.  In that
sense, it's wrong.

On the other hand, language is fluid, and new words/usage are
constantly being added.  Didn't the OED (or was that Meriam Webster?)
recently add words such as googling and muggle?  But then, if typo's
were to come into "proper usage," I'd still be on it being used as the
plural form of typo.


bboyminn:
> Also note that I searched Google for "typo's" and found
> 325,000 instances, which admittedly pales by comparison to
> a search for 'typos', but it says I'm not only one. Also
> note that one of those instances was National Public Radio.

Ali:
Meh.  The web is a (relatively) new enough medium for many of the old
guards that they haven't taken to seriously editing their writings -
it's also considered far more informal, so many of the media outlets
don't even have editors for web writing.  Moreover, I'm betting that
they're betting the average person won't notice.  (And let's face it.
They're right.  The average person adds that random apostrophe in a
million inappropriate places.)


bboyminn:
> Certainly, as my search shows, "typo's" is not common, but
> again the question at hand is not whether "'s" pluralizes
> anything, but whether "typo's" is a valid contraction for
> a plural phrase that already ends in "s"?

Ali:
At this point in time, I'd say that you're wrong and that typos is not
grammatically correct, but who can really say what's to happen in the
future?  English is an exceptionally fluid language, which is why I've
always hated it.  (It's my 2nd language, and it's a pain because there
are few hard & fast rules for, oh, anything since the average person
isn't exactly going around and only following Chicago style or
something.  Blegh.)

Ali, hoping that this email doesn't have terribly obvious
grammatically incorrect usage in it because it would mean the 162 pgs
doc she is editing also has grammatical issues she has missed



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 21:42:00 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:42:00 -0000
Subject: Noah's Ark
In-Reply-To: <g21b2p+njsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21pf8+nl07@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" <jaynesmith62 at ...> wrote:
>
> I think you will all appreciate ths especially the fellow Brits
> 
> Jayne
> LOL
> 
> In the year 2008 the Lord came unto Noah, who was now living in 
> England ,

<large snip>

> So, forgive me, Lord, but it would take at least 10 years for me to 
> finish
> this Ark. " 
> 
> Suddenly the skies cleared, the sun began to shine, and a rainbow
> stretched across the sky. 
> 
> Noah looked up in wonder and asked, "You mean you're not going to
> destroy the world?" 
> 
> "No," said the Lord. "The British government are beating me to it."

Geoff:
This is interesting but I don't think it's at all realistic.

If you take the length of time it takes to plan and build new light 
rail schemes as an example, it going to take at least 15 years. 
And what about the projected carbon footprint?
:-(






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 21:57:59 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:57:59 -0000
Subject: The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2177e+53vb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g21qd7+poqj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> > 
> > a_svirn:

<snip of repeated material>

> > >The Tudors kind of
> > > united both houses and came up (for propaganda purposes) with
> > > the "Tudor Rose" a combination of the white rose of York and the
> > > almost entirely fictional the red rose of Lancaster. 
 
Geoff:

<ditto snip>
 
> > Hardly fictional....
 
a_svirn:
> Said by whom? These formulas "is said to have been" were usually 
> employed when either later authors made something up, or contemporary 
> ones wanted to disclaim all responsibility for whatever they were 
> saying. The Red Rose of Lancaster might have some connection with the 
> *duchy* of Lancaster, had but it had never ever been the heraldic 
> device of the *House* of Lancaster. Neither John of Gaunt, nor any 
> single one of Lancastrian kings used it as a personal badge. They 
> used SS chains mostly and some other devices as signs of their 
> livery. Edmund's badge was falcon and fetlock. His grandson Richard, 
> once he had inherited the March estate, used the white rose 
> occasionally, but mostly it was Richard's son Edward's (Edward IV) 
> device. (And, characteristically, when Edward IV created his second 
> son Richard the Duke of York the falcon emblem devolved to the boy 
> together with the title.) Edwards's father used for the mast the 
> falcon badge, and it was the York Falcon that was emblazoned all over 
> London during his Protectorate. 

Geoff:
But the point I am making is that, whether you agree with its use as you 
demonstrate above, the Red Rose of Lancaster exists and it and the white 
rose of York are accepted by the inhabitants of the area as their regional 
symbols.

I am a Lancastrian, brought up in the district as was my mother. My 
father was a Yorkshireman., so I could almost consider myself a Tudor. 
I was brought up  in  the culture I mentioned in the last paragraph; I am 
proud of my lineage and I consider that to describe an actual existing 
flower as "fictional" shows a lack of distinction between the historical 
fact - whether they be true or not - and the reality of the roses. 

Beware lest you are assailed by an army of irate North Country people 
advancing on you armed to the teeth with the appropriate rose bushes.






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  2 22:39:24 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:39:24 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
References: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4844769C.4040306@yahoo.com>

bboyminn:

> But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
> anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
> "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'.

Not quite. What you're saying is that the apostrophe contracts it and 
then the "s" pluralizes it. But that would mean you're arguing that the 
proper contracted form of the singular "typographical error" would be " 
typo' " with an apostrophe. But if you don't hold that the contracted 
singular requires an apostrophe, why would the contracted plural?

OK, I looked up "typo" in five separate online dictionaries: 
Bartleby.com, AskOxford.com, CollinsLanguage.com, Dictionary.com and 
LDOCEonline.com. They all agree that the plural of "typo" is "typos".

> Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international' . The "'l"
> logically doesn't make it plural

Of course not, since the plural morpheme in English is "s". But note 
that in this example, the apostrophe denotes an omission from the middle 
of the word, not the end.  Generally, when we omit stuff from the end of 
a word, we call it an abbreviation, not a contraction, and we terminate 
it with a period. To use your example, if we were to omit the "l" along 
with the "ernationa" we'd write it: "int." not "int'".

Let's play with your example further. The form "internationals" is often 
used nominally as a synonym for "aliens". If we contracted it according 
to the accept norm, it'd be "int'ls". If we wanted to omit the "l" also, 
  then we'd have an abbreviation, not a contraction, and the general 
rule is to include the s before the period, such as "capts.", "corps." 
or "Revs." (for "Reverends").

> In my case, my use of "'s" says that several letters have been
> left out between the 'o' and the 's'. I'm not pluralizing the
> phrase because the phrase is already plural.

But you don't contract a plural phrase. You contract the singular form, 
then follow the usual English rules for adding the plural "s".

CJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  2 23:03:28 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:03:28 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <4844769C.4040306@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g21u80+vg18@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:
> > Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international' . The "'l"
> > logically doesn't make it plural

CJ:
> Of course not, since the plural morpheme in English is "s". But note 
> that in this example, the apostrophe denotes an omission from the middle 
> of the word, not the end.  Generally, when we omit stuff from the end of 
> a word, we call it an abbreviation, not a contraction, and we terminate 
> it with a period. To use your example, if we were to omit the "l" along 
> with the "ernationa" we'd write it: "int." not "int'".

Geoff:
I hope that my snipping fits in with what I want to add. This discussion is 
getting rather convoluted.

What you also need to take on board is that, in UK English at least, there is 
a distinction between contractions using apostrophes and some words 
which are more frequently used in a truncated form. So, in written English, 
conversational and informal speech is indicated with words such as "isn't", 
"wouldn't" and "they've" whereas some words regularly used in a contracted 
form in more formal speech lack apostrophes... examples such as "Maths", 
"vet" or "exam" and "exams".

A form such as "Int'l" in UK English is unusual. I see it as being on a par 
with road markings. At some junctions, where lanes are marked with their 
destinations painted on the roads to help visitors, this sort of labelling is 
used if the lane lacks the width for the word. Examples in my home area 
would be "B'tol" for "Bristol", "T'ton" for "Taunton" (and occasionally the 
hideous US "Thru" for "Through". Yuck).








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun  2 23:33:55 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:33:55 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g218k5+79b3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g22013+r9if@eGroups.com>

Potioncat:
Carol is going to be sooooooo upset that she missed this! I hope her 
computer is fixed soon.

I'd jump in...in support of her, even though I tend to be Lancaterian 
while she is steadfast Yorkist. But more importantly, everything I 
know about roses, red or white, I learned from historical fiction, 
and  have long since forgot.

 
> a_svirn:
snip
. March then sweettalked 
> his men into believing that it is actually a good omen, and was 
proved 
> right ? the Lancastrian host lost spectacularly. Ever since then he 
> used "sun in splendor" as his emblem as well as the white rose and 
> sometimes combined them in the rose en soleil. 

Potioncat:
And at this point Carol would encourage everyone to read "The Sun in 
Splendor" (although the spelling might be different) about this point 
in history. I will encourage you too. Except I have to admit becoming 
quite fond of the characters and realizing about 1/3 of the way into 
the book how it was all going to turn out for them, and so had to 
stop reading.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun  3 02:50:38 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:50:38 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g216mj+snjs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g22bhu+83qr@eGroups.com>

 
> Mike: 
> And I always wondered what one does with a surname that ends in s. 
> That is, if there is a James Dents and all the little Dents. How 
> would one distinguish between one of the Dents owning something as 
> opposed to the entire family owning it? If I were to say "Dents' 
> automobile" am I referring to it as James' car or the Dents' family 
> car? 
> 
> I supposed I could just call it the "Dense car", though James may not 
> appreciate that. ;D


Potioncat:
I thought all plural words ending in s just add an '. Proper nouns that 
end in s have an 's to show possessive. So it would be James's car. As 
to the Dents family. This is Mr. Dents's car. That is the Dentses' van.
Or am I missing something in your post?

Of course, if you were saying Dents's or Dentses' it would sound alike 
So you might have to say, this car belongs to the Dents family, that 
car belongs to Mr. Dents.




From Schlobin at aol.com  Tue Jun  3 05:57:52 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:57:52 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g20gkm+ijdf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g22mh0+hlu8@eGroups.com>

Okay, first about the prequel. JKR says she felt like an addict having 
a relapse...
I think she'll be like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (although allegedly he 
did it for the money) who HAD to resurrect Sherlock Holmes after 
killing him at the Reichenbach (spelling?) Falls...
She'll have to do a prequel..and I'd LOVE the story of Mrs. Figg, 
particularly as a young woman, and what about Mr. Figg - was he a 
wizard, was he killed by Lord Voldemort?...I'd like Tales of the 
Original Order of the Phoenix....
Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga (hmmm, the men 
in the family were all stars or constellations - Orion, Sirius, 
Regulus...but she had a Germanic name! And is that a reference to 
Walpurga's night...wasn't that in Faust? 

OKAY, the WAR of the ROSES...one of my favorite topics.

The whole DEAL is that Edward III had too many sons!
Edward the Black Prince, whose son Richard became Richard II 
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, second son
John of Gaunt (who married Blanche, off Lancaster, and who himself 
became Duke of Lancaster).
Edmund, Earl of Cambridge, one of the progenitors of the Yorkist 
dynasties...
and Thomas of Woodstock

After Edward III, it goes

Richard II, grandson of Edward III through Edward the Black Prince

Henry IV, (who overthrew Richard II), who was the son of John of Gaunt, 
Duke of Lancaster, by Blanche of Lancaster.

Henry V, son of Henry IV (or Agincourt, and Shakespearian fame)

Henry VI, son of Henry V

Here's where it gets complicated.

The Duke of York overthrew Henry VI - Richard, the third duke of York 
was the great-grandson of Edmund of Langley, fourth son of Edward III 
through his father, and the grandson of Lionel, second son of Edward II 
through his mother Anne de Mortimer. His mother's claim was more 
important, even though he was the duke of "York." He died before 
attaining the throne.
HIS SON, was the next king

Edward IV, Duke of York, was the next king succeeded by his brother 
Richard III (a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse) who may have 
murdered the two princes in the tower (Edward IV's two sons).

And even more complicated...the next king was Henry VII.

HIS claim to the throne was that 1) his father, Owen Tudor, married the 
widow of Henry IV... and 2) he was the great grandson of John of Gaunt 
(go back up to Edward III) through his mistress and later wife, 
Katherine Swynford...

Also, interesting, he married the eldest daughter of Edward IV...
(combining the red rose of Lancaster and the White Rose of York into a 
red and white Tudor Rose)...and so really, Henry VIII was as much 
Plantagenet, (Yorkist) as any king of England.

Also, very interesting, is that all kinds of monarchs had as their 
ancestors John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and his mistress/wife 
Katharine Swynford...the Tudors, Edward IV/Richard III, and the kings 
of Scotland and Great Britain who succeeded Elizabeth I.

Susan








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun  3 06:26:32 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:26:32 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g22013+r9if@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g22o6o+60p3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> Potioncat:
> Carol is going to be sooooooo upset that she missed this! I hope her 
> computer is fixed soon.
> 
> I'd jump in...in support of her, even though I tend to be Lancaterian 
> while she is steadfast Yorkist. But more importantly, everything I 
> know about roses, red or white, I learned from historical fiction, 
> and  have long since forgot.

Geoff:
Oh good.

With my "Tudor" background, it means I can stay on speaking terms 
with both of you.....

:-))




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Tue Jun  3 06:29:25 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:29:25 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War
 of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g22mh0+hlu8@eGroups.com>
References: <g20gkm+ijdf@eGroups.com> <g22mh0+hlu8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <FEFE0A34CF3B46EB83E7D3B0B015C77A@FRODO>

[susanmcgee48176]:
| Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga ... <Snip>


[Lee]:
Really? How didst thee glean this information?

And, my Potter-twisted brain has to ask: Is there a relative from the House
of Gaunt from the War Of The Roses who might have been an ancestor of
Voldemort? :-)  The House of Gaunt must date back to Slitherin!

Cheers,

Lee :-)




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Jun  3 06:29:44 2008
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 02:29:44 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Rickman (and back to: Spin-Offs)
Message-ID: <c1a.3cff209c.35763ed8@aol.com>

     
 


Mike:
So I guess I was a dolt for picking up "Emma" first,  huh? 

I've seen the Kiara Knightley movie version of P&P and  liked it. I 
would've been better off starting there, I take  it?
 
Sandy:
 
In my opinion you will enjoy P&P all the more for having  started with 
"Emma". 
 
I have the six hour version of P&P with Colin Firth from  A&E and just love 
it. It is one of my favorite bedtime discs. I also  have Sense and Sensibility 
with so many of the HP stars in it; another  favorite, as is the book.
 
Sandy










**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun  3 06:34:12 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:34:12 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g22bhu+83qr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g22ol4+6a2j@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Mike: 
> > And I always wondered what one does with a surname that ends in s. 
> > That is, if there is a James Dents and all the little Dents. How 
> > would one distinguish between one of the Dents owning something as 
> > opposed to the entire family owning it? If I were to say "Dents' 
> > automobile" am I referring to it as James' car or the Dents' family 
> > car? 
> > 
> > I supposed I could just call it the "Dense car", though James may not 
> > appreciate that. ;D
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I thought all plural words ending in s just add an '. Proper nouns that 
> end in s have an 's to show possessive. So it would be James's car. As 
> to the Dents family. This is Mr. Dents's car. That is the Dentses' van.
> Or am I missing something in your post?
> 
> Of course, if you were saying Dents's or Dentses' it would sound alike 
> So you might have to say, this car belongs to the Dents family, that 
> car belongs to Mr. Dents.

Geoff:
Standard UK practice is to add just an apostrophe to a proper noun, so 
we would have Sirius' coat or James' wand... In Mike's example above 
using "Dents' car", the context should reveal about whom you are 
speaking. It's a bit like using "sheep" or other words in which the plural 
is the same; the context and grammar make it clear which one you are 
using. Similar thing happens a fair bit in German as well.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 11:05:28 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:05:28 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <FEFE0A34CF3B46EB83E7D3B0B015C77A@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g238ho+mlb0@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing 
Force)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [susanmcgee48176]:
> | Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga ... <Snip>
> 
> 
> [Lee]:
> Really? How didst thee glean this information?
> 
> And, my Potter-twisted brain has to ask: Is there a relative from 
the House
> of Gaunt from the War Of The Roses who might have been an ancestor 
of
> Voldemort? :-)  The House of Gaunt must date back to Slitherin!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lee :-)
>
That was the first thing that occurred to me once I finished The 
House of Gaunt chapter. Because apart from the name there was that 
locket on the golden chain. It is easy to imagine it fashioned in the 
SS links. Since the locket itself engraved with S it would be only 
fitting. And SS chains (or the collar of esses) had been the emblem 
of John of Gaunt and his followers and descendants and was later 
incorporated into the Tudor livery collar. It is sort of amusing, 
except that I don't see what it really matters, unless Dumbledore was 
himself of the house of York. 
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 11:07:28 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:07:28 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g22o6o+60p3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:
> And at this point Carol would encourage everyone to read "The Sun 
in 
> Splendor" (although the spelling might be different) about this 
point 
> in history. I will encourage you too.

a_svirn:
I've read it. I think it is quite good though, naturally, biased. 
Funnily enough, I've never read a good pro-Lancastrian novel. 


> > Potioncat:
> > Carol is going to be sooooooo upset that she missed this! I hope 
her 
> > computer is fixed soon.
> > 
> > I'd jump in...in support of her, even though I tend to be 
Lancaterian 
> > while she is steadfast Yorkist. But more importantly, everything 
I 
> > know about roses, red or white, I learned from historical 
fiction, 
> > and  have long since forgot.
> 
> Geoff:
> Oh good.
> 
> With my "Tudor" background, it means I can stay on speaking terms 
> with both of you.....
> 
> :-))

Handy. Except Carol doesn't seem to like the Tudors either:-)
a_svirn.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun  3 11:08:52 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:08:52 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g22ol4+6a2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g238o4+9g3v@eGroups.com>


> 
> Geoff:
> Standard UK practice is to add just an apostrophe to a proper noun, 
so 
> we would have Sirius' coat or James' wand... In Mike's example 
above 
> using "Dents' car", the context should reveal about whom you are 
> speaking. It's a bit like using "sheep" or other words in which the 
plural 
> is the same; the context and grammar make it clear which one you 
are 
> using. Similar thing happens a fair bit in German as well.


Potioncat:
argh! I should never spout off advice without checking it first. So I 
checked it afterwards. My dictionary with an incredibly long name, 
copywrited 1966 says there's a growing trend to add an 's to names 
that end in s.

Funny, for many years I'd followed the same rule as Geoff and 
recently (more recently than 1966) switched to 's. Hhmph, I'm old 
enough to like the old ways, so I'm dropping the s! Besides, it'll 
make texting easier.

And Mike, you knew what you were talking about with pronunciation. 
Whether you would add 's to a proper noun that ends in s does depend 
on pronunciation. 

Pronunciation! That's another big issue at this site.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Jun  3 11:15:15 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:15 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23943+arsh@eGroups.com>


> 
> a_svirn:
> I've read it. I think it is quite good though, naturally, biased. 
> Funnily enough, I've never read a good pro-Lancastrian novel. 
> 

Potioncat:
I discovered historical fiction in my teens. For some reason all I ever 
stumbled across were from the Lancastrian point of views. (Carol would 
consider them unreliable narrators!)(that's a joke) So I was absolutely 
shocked the first time I read a pro-York novel. None of the Yorks had 
horns!

The only pro-Lancaster novel I can think of is Katherine by Anya Seton. 
It was the one that started me off. That one takes place at the 
beginning of the saga.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 11:27:49 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:27:49 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g23943+arsh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g239rl+dijq@eGroups.com>

> > a_svirn:
> > I've read it. I think it is quite good though, naturally, biased. 
> > Funnily enough, I've never read a good pro-Lancastrian novel. 
> > 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I discovered historical fiction in my teens. For some reason all I 
ever 
> stumbled across were from the Lancastrian point of views. (Carol 
would 
> consider them unreliable narrators!)(that's a joke) So I was 
absolutely 
> shocked the first time I read a pro-York novel. None of the Yorks 
had 
> horns!
> 

Oh, I don't think reliability is a requirement. I've just remembered 
that I once read a pretty reliable historically pro-Lancastrian 
novel ? Heyer's My Lord John. But I couldn't finish it because it was 
almost impossible to get past all those "in sooth", "by troth" 
and "unbosom, Harry". 
a_svirn 





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Tue Jun  3 11:32:52 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:32:52 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23a54+m24c@eGroups.com>

---> > Potioncat:
> > And at this point Carol would encourage everyone to read "The Sun 
> in 
> > Splendor" (although the spelling might be different) about this 
> point 
> > in history. I will encourage you too.

I would also encourage everyone to read The Sunne in Splendour by 
Sharon Penman. This is the best one off book Ihave ever read. I could 
not put it down.Before reading this I was interested in Richard111 and 
Wars of Roses. Now I love Richard and that period

Jayne
Pro York and Richard 111




From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Tue Jun  3 11:38:24 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:38:24 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g23943+arsh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23afg+lf91@eGroups.com>

---> > 
> > > Potioncat:
> I> The only pro-Lancaster novel I can think of is Katherine by Anya 
Seton. 
> It was the one that started me off. That one takes place at the 
> beginning of the saga.
>
Yes that is good too. It brings to life the beginning of the conflict 
and it can be seen how the rest of it happened. To me it put John of 
Gaunt in a good light for a change.
Anya Seton is not a bad writer, although not as good IMHO as Sharon 
Penman and of course my favourite who is  Dorothy Dunnett

Jayne
Who is history mad




From annemehr at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 13:03:08 2008
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:03:08 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g238o4+9g3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23fec+39c1@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
 
> Potioncat:
> argh! I should never spout off advice without checking it first. So 
I 
> checked it afterwards. My dictionary with an incredibly long name, 
> copywrited 1966 says there's a growing trend to add an 's to names 
> that end in s.
> 
> Funny, for many years I'd followed the same rule as Geoff and 
> recently (more recently than 1966) switched to 's. Hhmph, I'm old 
> enough to like the old ways, so I'm dropping the s! Besides, it'll 
> make texting easier.

HA!  I knew it!  I'm dropping the s too.  And here I had been 
thinking I'd misremembered my grammar...

Sheesh, next thing you know, it'll be customary to denote plurals 
with 's.

Annemehr





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun  3 15:36:30 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:36:30 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23odu+8uef@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:

Potioncat:
> > > Carol is going to be sooooooo upset that she missed this! I hope 
> > > her computer is fixed soon.
 
> > > I'd jump in...in support of her, even though I tend to be Lancaterian 
> > > while she is steadfast Yorkist. But more importantly, everything 
> > > I know about roses, red or white, I learned from historical 
> > > fiction,  and  have long since forgot.

> > Geoff:
> > Oh good.
> > 
> > With my "Tudor" background, it means I can stay on speaking terms 
> > with both of you.....
> > 
> > :-))
> 
> Handy. Except Carol doesn't seem to like the Tudors either:-)
> a_svirn.

Geoff:
No, but I therefore have links to both sides. Whichever one is on 
the up, I can justifiably wave the appropriate flag - or rose and 
thus cheer for Potioncat or Carol according to what is relevant to 
the occasion.
:-)






From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Tue Jun  3 16:59:27 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:59:27 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g23t9f+r4vb@eGroups.com>

> bboyminn:
> 
> But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
> anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
> "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 

Magpie:
But the phrase doesn't end in an s unless it's plural. Typo is short 
for TYPOgraphical error. So typo is the abbreviation and typos makes 
that short form plural.

-m




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun  3 18:48:16 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:48:16 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g23t9f+r4vb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g243lg+uhnf@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
> > anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
> > "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 
> 
> Magpie:
> But the phrase doesn't end in an s unless it's plural. Typo is short 
> for TYPOgraphical error. So typo is the abbreviation and typos makes 
> that short form plural.

Geoff:
I would agree with Magpie on this one. Just to make my point, in a recent
post, I used a couple of abbreviated English words which are accepted as
the norm.... vet and exam. Their universally accepted plural forms are vets
and exams. 






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 20:16:26 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:16:26 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g238o4+9g3v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g248qq+h63g@eGroups.com>

> > Geoff:
> > Standard UK practice is to add just an apostrophe to a proper
> > noun, so we would have Sirius' coat or James' wand... 
> > In Mike's example above using "Dents' car", 

Mike:
That's the way I was taught, Geoff. However, I am seeing an 
additional "s" after the apostrophe so often these days that I'm 
thinking the convention has changed.



> Potioncat:
> 
> And Mike, you knew what you were talking about with pronunciation. 
> Whether you would add 's to a proper noun that ends in s does 
> depend on pronunciation. 

Mike:
Wait,... what? I was right about something? That doesn't happen too 
often, pray tell how was I right? 

In speaking, I would pronounce it the "Dents car", I wouldn't say 
the "Dentses". Conversely I would pronounce it "Jameses car". Does 
that make it correct to uses -James's- while still sticking to the 
conventional -Dents'-?

Does someone have a better example? Or is there a new rule to use 
when applying this new convention?

Mike, extremely pleased to be right even if he doesn't know how it 
happened :D




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 23:16:11 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:16:11 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
 / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g22ol4+6a2j@eGroups.com>
References: <g22ol4+6a2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4845D0BB.10308@yahoo.com>

Mike:

And I always wondered what one does with a surname that ends in s.
.... How would one distinguish between one of the Dents owning
something as opposed to the entire family owning it?

Me:

Two ways. First, the proper plural of Dents is Dentses. Second, with the 
addition of the article: "Dents' (or Dents's) car" vs. "the Dentses' 
car." If you're one who happens to pronounce Dents's and Dentses the 
same, "the" will still distinguish the two.

Of course, for consistency, if one prefers Dents's, one should also 
write Dentses's (and say "Dentseses" ?!), but that's getting mighty 
awkard, indeed.

Speaking of pronunciation, this seems to be largely a case of the 
orthography informing it. Those who add just the apostrophe generally 
pronounce Dents' the same as Dents; those who add 's pronounce it the 
same as Dentses.

Geoff:

Standard UK practice is to add just an apostrophe to a proper
noun, so we would have Sirius' coat or James' wand.

Annemehr:

HA! I knew it! I'm dropping the s too. And here I had been
thinking I'd misremembered my grammar...

And me again:

Well, I can't speak to the British situation, but in the U.S. there is 
no consensus. Journalists generally just add the apostrophe; other 
authorities insist on 's. In this situation "house rules" apply -- i.e., 
check with your publisher.

However, I've read from some authorities that, historically, 's itself 
came about as a contraction of "his" -- e.g., "John his horse" becoming 
"John's horse". Although I'm a bit sceptical (NOT "skeptical") of the 
explanation, if true, then the proper possessive form of James would be 
James's, and the proper pronunciation would be "Jameses".

Annemehr:

Sheesh, next thing you know, it'll be customary to denote plurals
with 's.

Me:

Depends what you mean by "customary". Certainly, it's quite common. 
Whether "common" equates to "acceptable" is a different question.

CJ




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Jun  3 23:22:29 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:22:29 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g243lg+uhnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g24jnl+snsb@eGroups.com>

---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie@> wrote:
> >
> > > bboyminn:
> > > 
> > > But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" 
> > > pluralizes anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase
> > > already ending in "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > But the phrase doesn't end in an s unless it's plural. 
> > Typo is short for TYPOgraphical error. So typo is the 
> > abbreviation and typos makes that short form plural.
> 
> Geoff:
> I would agree with Magpie on this one. Just to make my point,
> in a recent post, I used a couple of abbreviated English words
> which are accepted as the norm.... vet and exam. Their 
> universally accepted plural forms are vets and exams.
>

bboyminn:

But just because something is accepted as universal style,
doesn't mean other methods are wrong. Style guides are just
that 'guides'. Style guides say that ATM and FBI are acceptable
form, but that doesn't mean A.T.M. and F.B.I. are incorrect.
ATM and FBI are /acceptable/, but that doesn't mean other
forms are not also acceptable. 

Just as gov't and int'l for government and international have
given way to govt and intl as acceptable forms, doesn't mean
the originals are incorrect. Just because typo has become
the common form doesn't mean that 'typo.' is wrong. I suspect
typo' is somewhat correct as it indicates letters have been 
left out. 

Admittedly through common and lazy informal usage, 'typo' has
become an acceptable informal word. Just as info, vet, and
exam have. But those were never words, they were merely accepted
as common usage in common informal speech.  

The only question at hand, regardless of common or acceptable
style, is whether "typo's" forms a valid contraction for the
already plural 'TYPOgraphical errorS'?

It doesn't matter that typos is the common informal plural
of typo. What matters is whether I have formed a valid
contraction. 

Are their hard and fast rules for contractions in informal 
speech (or writing)?

I admit that ending with "'" is not common but it does exist.
More common is "xxx'y" implying that letters have been dropped
from the middle, as in "can't" for 'can not'. 

So, once again, regardless of what is accepted or common style,
which is never absolute, have I formed a valid contraction 
according to the rules of forming contractions in informal
speech and writing?

steve/bboyminn




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 00:11:13 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:11:13 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g21u80+vg18@eGroups.com>
References: <g21u80+vg18@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4845DDA1.5040902@yahoo.com>

bboyminn:
Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international'.

CJ:
....in this example, the apostrophe denotes an omission from
the middle of the word, not the end.

Geoff:
there is a distinction between contractions using apostrophes
and some words which are more frequently used in a truncated
form.... examples such as "Maths", "vet" or "exam" and "exams".
A form such as "Int'l" in UK English is unusual.

Me (CJ):

Good examples (except for the atrocious UK "maths").

I don't think either bboyminn or I were implying that "int'l" is on par 
with "vet" or "exam" as an excepted shorthand. I think it's pretty much 
akin to your roadsign examples -- used when space constrains or the 
writer is lazy or as part of a company name, but certainly not plunked 
down in the middle of a graduate dissertation.

CJ




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 01:32:31 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:32:31 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g24jnl+snsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g24rbf+ioas@eGroups.com>

> bboyminn:
> 
> But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" 
> pluralizes anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase
> already ending in "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 
 
 > Magpie:
 > But the phrase doesn't end in an s unless it's plural. 
 > Typo is short for TYPOgraphical error. So typo is the 
 > abbreviation and typos makes that short form plural.
 
> > Geoff:
> > I would agree with Magpie on this one. Just to make my point,
> > in a recent post, I used a couple of abbreviated English words
> > which are accepted as the norm.... vet and exam. Their 
> > universally accepted plural forms are vets and exams.
> >

> bboyminn:
> 
> But just because something is accepted as universal style,
> doesn't mean other methods are wrong. Style guides are just
> that 'guides'. Style guides say that ATM and FBI are acceptable
> form, but that doesn't mean A.T.M. and F.B.I. are incorrect.
> ATM and FBI are /acceptable/, but that doesn't mean other
> forms are not also acceptable. 
> 
> The only question at hand, regardless of common or acceptable
> style, is whether "typo's" forms a valid contraction for the
> already plural 'TYPOgraphical errorS'?
> 
> It doesn't matter that typos is the common informal plural
> of typo. What matters is whether I have formed a valid
> contraction. 
> 
> Are their hard and fast rules for contractions in informal 
> speech (or writing)?


Kemper now:
I don't think their are hard/fast rules for informal speech/writing so
long as you are understood. i cann mspell most of ths sntenc nd u cn
stl undrsand me... though it might take a double read. So, I'm sure no
one was confused with using the apostrophe.

That said, I think "typo's" is wrong.  The trouble with your example
is that it is a two word phrase.  "Vets", "exams", "gov't", and
"int'l" are not great examples against "typo's".  But I think "BLT" is
as it is short for "Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato Sandwich".  The
abbreviated plural of "Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato Sandwiches",
according to Random House, is BLTs.  Though, of course, no one would
be confused if you wrote, "I had five BLT's for lunch... I feel a
kinda bloaty."   

The apostrophe might not be acceptable or valid, but who cares? 

fwiw
Kemper





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun  4 03:11:55 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:11:55 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g24jnl+snsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2515r+d2pv@eGroups.com>

> bboyminn:
 
> Just as gov't and int'l for government and international have
> given way to govt and intl as acceptable forms, doesn't mean
> the originals are incorrect. Just because typo has become
> the common form doesn't mean that 'typo.' is wrong. I suspect
> typo' is somewhat correct as it indicates letters have been 
> left out. 

Magpie:
Why typo' instead of typo'r according to your rule with the plural? If 
we're following the example of int'l and gov't?

-m




From Schlobin at aol.com  Wed Jun  4 04:25:53 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:25:53 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <FEFE0A34CF3B46EB83E7D3B0B015C77A@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g255gh+kjb3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing 
Force)" <n2fgc at ...> wrote:
>
> [susanmcgee48176]:
> | Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga ... <Snip>
> 
> 
> [Lee]:
> Really? How didst thee glean this information?

>From the Harry Potter Lexicon








From Schlobin at aol.com  Wed Jun  4 04:28:56 2008
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:28:56 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g255m8+gjcr@eGroups.com>

> > And at this point Carol would encourage everyone to read "The Sun 
> in 
> > Splendor" (although the spelling might be different) about this 
> point 
> > in history. I will encourage you too.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I've read it. I think it is quite good though, naturally, biased. 
> Funnily enough, I've never read a good pro-Lancastrian novel. 
> 
> 

Isn't that interesting? All the historical novels I've read were pro-
Yorkist, too......

But of course, Shakespeare is pro-Lancaster.....which probably makes up 
for all the historical novels!

Susan




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 06:11:02 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:11:02 -0000
Subject: /Walpurga - The Black Family Tree
In-Reply-To: <g255gh+kjb3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g25blm+tuhg@eGroups.com>

---  "susanmcgee48176" <Schlobin at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force)" <n2fgc@> wrote:
> >
> > [susanmcgee48176]:
> > | Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga ... <Snip>
> > 
> > 
> > [Lee]:
> > Really? How didst thee glean this information?

> Susan...: 
>
> From the Harry Potter Lexicon
>

bboyminn:

JKR created a Black family tree and Walpurga is identified on it.
I'm sure that is where the Lexicon gets its information, though
I'm also sure there is a copy of the actual Black Family Tree if
you look hard enough.

Here is the Black Family List-
http://www.hp-lexicon.info/wizards/blackfamily.html

And, here is the actual Black Family Tree-
http://www.hp-lexicon.info/wizards/blackfamilytree.html

Sirius, number (6) on the tree, is the son of Orion Black and
Walpurga Black. Yes, that's right; they are both named Black,
meaning they are probably cousins of some degree or measure.

Steve/bboyminn




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun  4 06:57:30 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:57:30 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g25e89+e7iv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g25ecq+5b1d@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
Tying up a few loose ends.

Recently, there has been a great deal of debate in the UK over
punctuation etc. A lot of it was triggered by the publication in
2007 of a hard hitting but humorous book: "Eats, Shoots and
Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" by Lynne
Truss.

The apostrophe has been very much under fire over here because
of its misuse with the use of `s as a plural, particularly on labelling
and notices. I wince every time I drive through Lynton, a small
coastal town about ten miles away where a local pub has been
displaying a huge banner for several months which reads "All 
Day Meal's". Ouch.

Picking up on a comment by CJ, there are a number of words in
US English which jar with me as a native UK English speaker and
one at the top of my list /is/ Math instead of Maths. Perhaps I
speak as having been a Maths teacher for 32 years having also
done some English teaching during that period.

Hm. am I wandering into a minefield here? What have I done with
my trusty old tin hat?
:-)




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 09:52:53 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:52:53 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g24rbf+ioas@eGroups.com>
References: <g24rbf+ioas@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <484665F5.6020306@yahoo.com>

bboyminn:
But just because something is accepted as universal style, doesn't mean 
other methods are wrong.

Me (CJ):
Language is nothing more than a commonly accepted set of linguistic 
symbols. "Dog" means "dog" simply because that's what everyone agrees it 
means. Thus, the only possible definition of "right" and "wrong" in a 
linguistic context is in reference to common acceptance. Something is 
"right" because everyone agrees on it.

So when you dismiss common acceptance as irrelevant, as you did when you 
said, "It doesn't matter that typos is the common informal plural of 
typo", then we're left with no way to adjudicate right from wrong.

"Typos is the common informal plural of typo" is just another way of 
saying, linguistically speaking, "typos" is right.

bboyminn:
What matters is whether I have formed a valid contraction.

Me:
It can't be right if it can't be wrong. And if we're not allowed to 
reference common acceptance, then we have no way to decide whether 
anything is right or wrong. Or valid.

bboyminn:
Style guides say that ATM and FBI are acceptable form, but that doesn't 
mean A.T.M. and F.B.I. are incorrect.

Me:
Because both forms are commonly accepted. But suppose I want to 
punctuate initials with an apostrophe? I could argue that just because 
A'T'M' isn't commonly accepted doesn't mean it isn't valid. But down 
that road, I think, lies linguistic anarchy.

Geoff:
there are a number of words in US English which jar with me as a native 
UK English speaker and one at the top of my list /is/ Math instead of Maths.

Me:
:-) I feel the same way about "maths". It ain't plural, why stick an s 
on it?

CJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun  4 12:21:10 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:21:10 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <484665F5.6020306@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g261bm+55em@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> there are a number of words in US English which jar with me as a native 
> UK English speaker and one at the top of my list /is/ Math instead of Maths.
 
CJ:
> :-) I feel the same way about "maths". It ain't plural, why stick an s 
> on it?

Geoff:
Because the basic word has an s at the end and ain't a plural.
:-)

Also, I grew up with Maths and it feels right. Math just doesn't sound 
right. But I expect that your feeling will be the mirror image of mine.






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 14:48:17 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:48:17 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g261bm+55em@eGroups.com>
References: <g261bm+55em@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4846AB31.6080202@yahoo.com>

CJ:
...."maths". It ain't plural, why stick an s on it?

Geoff:
Because the basic word has an s at the end and ain't a plural.

Me (CJ):
In that case, shouldn't it be math's? :-)

Geoff:
But I expect that your feeling will be the mirror image of mine.

Me:
Exactly. It's all what we're used to.

Thanks for the reply.

CJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun  4 15:06:19 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:06:19 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <4846AB31.6080202@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g26b1b+8p4k@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> CJ:
> ...."maths". It ain't plural, why stick an s on it?
> 
> Geoff:
> Because the basic word has an s at the end and ain't a plural.
> 
> Me (CJ):
> In that case, shouldn't it be math's? :-)

Geoff:
I thought you'd drag out that red herring!

I think that if you discount the "standard" contractions such as "isn't", 
"they've" etc., Maths pre-dates the modern urge to have "Int'l" and such 
like.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 15:41:34 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:41:34 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <g261bm+55em@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g26d3e+1j3o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen@> wrote:
> 
> Geoff:
> > there are a number of words in US English which jar with me
> > as a native UK English speaker and one at the top of my list
> > /is/ Math instead of Maths.
>  
> CJ:
> > :-) I feel the same way about "maths". It ain't plural, why
> > stick an "s" on it?
> 
> Geoff:
> Because the basic word has an s at the end and ain't a plural.
> :-)
> 
> Also, I grew up with Maths and it feels right. Math just 
> doesn't sound right. But I expect that your feeling will be 
> the mirror image of mine.
>


bboyminn:

Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows

math
math.
math's

but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
things would be different. 


So, exactly what is 'maths', is it a plural where 'maths'
refers to a combination of algebra, trigonometry, geometry,
and calculus. Algebra being a single 'math' and all of them 
collectively being many 'maths'? 

It would seem that the word 'math' already collectively
refers to all the sub-branches of this particular science, so
the addition of an 's' is redundant. 

In a sense, by saying 'maths' you are really saying -

'mathematicSS' (two 's's are intentional)

Now if you were to say "math's" I could be somewhat sympathetic.
(He said with a wry smile.)

Steve/bboyminn




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Wed Jun  4 16:02:50 2008
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:02:50 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <g26d3e+1j3o@eGroups.com>
References: <g261bm+55em@eGroups.com> <g26d3e+1j3o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0806040902q1695d131ue8a5913c12b6ea2f@mail.gmail.com>

bboyminn:
> Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
>SNIP<
> but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> things would be different.

Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
(2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
English conventions.

~Ali



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 19:02:29 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:02:29 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0806040902q1695d131ue8a5913c12b6ea2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g26os5+t2qo@eGroups.com>

---  "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
> >SNIP<
> > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > things would be different.

> Ali:
> 
> Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
> dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British
> and (2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with 
> standard [US] English conventions.
> 
> ~Ali
>

bboyminn:

Well, we start out accepting that this is standard British 
usage. What I am looking for is the underlying reason for
this. Math is a truncated version of Mathematics, just as
typo is a truncated version of typographical, and info a
truncated version of information. I say truncated because
the sense of these words being abbreviated has been lost.

But, as I tried to point out, Mathematics is a collective
word. That is, it is a single word that speaks to multiple
things. In that sense, it is already plural. Which in turn
means that the truncated version of that is also already
plural.

Math, in and of itself, includes all subcategories of
mathematics. Math includes algebra, trigonometry, geometry,
calculus, and others. Because Math is an overriding 
all-encompassing category, there is no plural of it. 

>From another perspective, you can't have two Maths because
Math includes all forms of Math. There is no higher or 
parallel entity that would allow you to have two maths.

This is the underlying reasoning that makes 'maths' so
foreign to the American ear. There is no way for Math
to be more plural than it already is because, as I pointed
out, there is no way to have two of them. 

Expanding this, I could take two math classes, but I couldn't
take two maths because there is only one math. If I were
taking Trigonometry and Geometry, that is not two maths, 
that is two aspects of one math.

Still it is common and accepted in the UK, so I can't go
so far as to say it is wrong. Common and frequent usage
have, right or wrong, made it right. But to my mind and my
ear, it still defies logic.

Though, as much as I hate to admit it, Documents is a all-
encompassing category, and we frequently shorten it to 'docs'.
But, in a real sense documents can have parallel entities.
You really can have more than one document or more than one
type of document. So, in that sense, documents is more of
a generalization than a top of the list all-encompassing 
entity. I still say you can't have more than one Math. You
can have more than one sub-type, but you can't have more 
than one of the top-if-the-list entity. 

Just curious.

Steve/bboyminn




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun  4 19:12:05 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:12:05 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0806040902q1695d131ue8a5913c12b6ea2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g26pe5+62qp@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
> >SNIP<
> > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > things would be different.

Ali: 
> Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
> dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
> (2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
> English conventions.

Geoff:
I do have A Concise Oxford Dictionary which begins its definition 
as:
mathematics  n.pl. (usually treated as singular). abstract science of 
space and number....

The Reader's Digest word Power Dictionary begins to define the 
same as:
mathematics > plural noun  (usu. treated as sing.) the field of 
knowledge concerned with number, quantity and space....

maths (N. Amer. math) > noun short for MATHEMATICS.

However, I challenge anyone to find a UK English speaker - or 
even a US English speaker - who will say "Mathematics are..."  And 
can anyone put their finger on a singular use as "Mathematic"?








From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun  4 22:08:16 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:08:16 -0000
Subject: /Walpurga - The Black Family Tree
In-Reply-To: <g25blm+tuhg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g273og+j956@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:

> JKR created a Black family tree and Walpurga is identified on it.


She is actually Walburga, not Walpurga, although I'm sure they are just 
the two versions of the same name :-). There was a saint named 
Walburga, IIRC - I once needed to do research on St. Hedwig and I think 
I saw St. Walburga on the same list of saints.


zanooda




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 06:30:06 2008
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <g26pe5+62qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <336072.12140.qm@web63709.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

"What is the mathematic use of "X" in this word problem?"
   
  Alex Hogan
   
  
Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
          --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" <alexisnguyen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
> >SNIP<
> > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > things would be different.

Ali: 
> Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
> dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
> (2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
> English conventions.

Geoff:
I do have A Concise Oxford Dictionary which begins its definition 
as:
mathematics n.pl. (usually treated as singular). abstract science of 
space and number....

The Reader's Digest word Power Dictionary begins to define the 
same as:
mathematics > plural noun (usu. treated as sing.) the field of 
knowledge concerned with number, quantity and space....

maths (N. Amer. math) > noun short for MATHEMATICS.

However, I challenge anyone to find a UK English speaker - or 
even a US English speaker - who will say "Mathematics are..." And 
can anyone put their finger on a singular use as "Mathematic"?



                           

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun  5 06:36:47 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:36:47 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <336072.12140.qm@web63709.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g281hv+8tn2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Alex Hogan <predigirl1 at ...> wrote:

> Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>           --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" 
<alexisnguyen@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > bboyminn:
> > > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
> > >SNIP<
> > > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > > things would be different.
> 
> Ali: 
> > Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
> > dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
> > (2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
> > English conventions.
> 
> Geoff:
> I do have A Concise Oxford Dictionary which begins its definition 
> as:
> mathematics n.pl. (usually treated as singular). abstract science of 
> space and number....
> 
> The Reader's Digest word Power Dictionary begins to define the 
> same as:
> mathematics > plural noun (usu. treated as sing.) the field of 
> knowledge concerned with number, quantity and space....
> 
> maths (N. Amer. math) > noun short for MATHEMATICS.
> 
> However, I challenge anyone to find a UK English speaker - or 
> even a US English speaker - who will say "Mathematics are..." And 
> can anyone put their finger on a singular use as "Mathematic"?

Alex:
> "What is the mathematic use of "X" in this word problem?"
    
Alex Hogan

Geoff:
(I've shifted your reply to its correct bottom-posted position.)

I don't think that is a valid reply to my question because the word 
"mathematic" is being used as an adjective and should therefore 
be "mathematical".




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 06:38:26 2008
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <4846AB31.6080202@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <68947.67524.qm@web63708.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

If it were "math's" it would mean a property of math itself as in "math's tendancy to irritate people".
   
  Alex Hogan

Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at yahoo.com> wrote:
          CJ:
...."maths". It ain't plural, why stick an s on it?

Geoff:
Because the basic word has an s at the end and ain't a plural.

Me (CJ):
In that case, shouldn't it be math's? :-)

Geoff:
But I expect that your feeling will be the mirror image of mine.

Me:
Exactly. It's all what we're used to.

Thanks for the reply.

CJ



                           

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 06:44:59 2008
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <g281hv+8tn2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <478100.7523.qm@web63704.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

 
   
  Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
          --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Alex Hogan <predigirl1 at ...> wrote: Oh you're just mad because I got you! Just kidding!

> Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen" 
<alexisnguyen@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > bboyminn:
> > > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows
> > >SNIP<
> > > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > > things would be different.
> 
> Ali: 
> > Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
> > dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
> > (2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
> > English conventions.
> 
> Geoff:
> I do have A Concise Oxford Dictionary which begins its definition 
> as:
> mathematics n.pl. (usually treated as singular). abstract science of 
> space and number....
> 
> The Reader's Digest word Power Dictionary begins to define the 
> same as:
> mathematics > plural noun (usu. treated as sing.) the field of 
> knowledge concerned with number, quantity and space....
> 
> maths (N. Amer. math) > noun short for MATHEMATICS.
> 
> However, I challenge anyone to find a UK English speaker - or 
> even a US English speaker - who will say "Mathematics are..." And 
> can anyone put their finger on a singular use as "Mathematic"?

Alex:
> "What is the mathematic use of "X" in this word problem?"

Alex Hogan

Geoff:
(I've shifted your reply to its correct bottom-posted position.)

I don't think that is a valid reply to my question because the word 
"mathematic" is being used as an adjective and should therefore 
be "mathematical".



_Alex Hogan said_._,_.___   Messages in this topic (33) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic 
  Messages | Files | Photos | Polls | Members 
  ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________

The main list rules also apply here, so make sure you read them!
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html#2

Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying!

    MARKETPLACE
    Blockbuster is giving away a free trial of Blockbuster Total Access to smart movie lovers like you.     ');  } catch(e){}  //-->        


   
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional 
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 

    
    Recent Activity
    
      1
  New Members

Visit Your Group 
      Y! Entertainment
  World of Star Wars
  Rediscover the force.
  Explore now.

    Yahoo! News
  Kevin Sites
  Get coverage of
  world crises.

    Yahoo! Groups
  Join people over 40
  who are finding ways
  to stay in shape.



  .

 
                           

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 07:08:03 2008
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g2515r+d2pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <624797.92855.qm@web63713.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

In a day and age when the word "ain't" is actually recognized as a word in the dictionary, we grammar purists sometimes feel as though we should acquiesce. But NO! I shall never stop teaching my children proper grammar! It is our sworn duty to halt the influx of slang and colloquialisms pervading the schools and our everyday lives! 
   
  Alex Hogan

sistermagpie <sistermagpie at earthlink.net> wrote: 
        > bboyminn:

> Just as gov't and int'l for government and international have
> given way to govt and intl as acceptable forms, doesn't mean
> the originals are incorrect. Just because typo has become
> the common form doesn't mean that 'typo.' is wrong. I suspect
> typo' is somewhat correct as it indicates letters have been 
> left out. 

Magpie:
Why typo' instead of typo'r according to your rule with the plural? If 
we're following the example of int'l and gov't?

-m



                           

       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Jun  5 10:58:00 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:58:00 -0000
Subject: Ain't (was Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <484665F5.6020306@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g28gro+l90q@eGroups.com>

 
> CJ:
> :-) I feel the same way about "maths". It ain't plural, why stick an 
s on it?

Potioncat:
Ain't! Boy, that takes me down memory lane. I haven't heard that word 
in years. Well, yes, I have heard it from time to time in the same 
sense CJ used it. But not often and this time, it sent me to my 
childhood. When I was a regular user of ain't, we didn't say maths or 
math. The course was arithmetic.







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun  5 13:41:19 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:41:19 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <478100.7523.qm@web63704.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g28qdv+avpk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Alex Hogan <predigirl1 at ...> wrote:
    
>   Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>           --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Alex Hogan 
<predigirl1@> wrote: Oh you're just mad because I got you! Just kidding!


Sorry, I can;t figure this message out. In which post did you write the bit 
about kidding to which I replied?

Geoff (scratching head in puzzlement)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun  5 15:29:39 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:29:39 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <624797.92855.qm@web63713.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g290p3+vrhh@eGroups.com>

Alex:
> In a day and age when the word "ain't" is actually recognized as a 
word in the dictionary, we grammar purists sometimes feel as though we 
should acquiesce. But NO! I shall never stop teaching my children 
proper grammar! It is our sworn duty to halt the influx of slang and 
colloquialisms pervading the schools and our everyday lives! 

Magpie:
Was ain't always considered wrong? 

-m




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Thu Jun  5 15:34:59 2008
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:34:59 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <624797.92855.qm@web63713.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <g2515r+d2pv@eGroups.com>
	 <624797.92855.qm@web63713.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0806050834m74ce0c52h269176d220a94439@mail.gmail.com>

Alex Hogan:
> In a day and age when the word "ain't" is actually recognized as a word in
> the dictionary, we grammar purists sometimes feel as though we should
> acquiesce. But NO! I shall never stop teaching my children proper grammar!
> It is our sworn duty to halt the influx of slang and colloquialisms
> pervading the schools and our everyday lives!


Since we have no such body (like France) to dictate language to us,
the language must therefore be fluid.  Thus being a "grammar purist"
is almost an excercise in futility.  How do we define pure?  Ain't has
been a recognized word for the majority of my life, and while I recall
being told it wasn't a word, I don't recall ever not being able to
find it in a dictionary.

I consider the OED to be the end all and be all of language
definition, but that has a decidedly British slant.  W3 might be the
best reference for the American Language crowd, but there are those
that think American Heritage is better.  Regardless of which you
subscribe to, I would submit that both of these dictionaries (which do
reference usage, slangs, colloquialisms, etc.) are fluid, and you'll
find "ain't" in all of them.

As far as Magpie's questions, here's an entry from the online Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t

Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: \??nt\
Etymology: contraction of are not
Date: 1749
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did not ?used in some varieties of Black English

usage Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in
the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is
flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing
to catch attention and to gain emphasis <the wackiness of movies, once
so deliciously amusing, ain't funny anymore ? Richard Schickel> <I am
telling you?there ain't going to be any blackmail ? R. M. Nixon>. It
is used especially in journalistic prose as part of a consistently
informal style <the creative process ain't easy ? Mike Royko>. This
informal ain't is commonly distinguished from habitual ain't by its
frequent occurrence in fixed constructions and phrases <well?class it
ain't? Cleveland Amory> <for money? say it ain't so, Jimmy! ? Andy
Rooney> <you ain't seen nothing yet> <that ain't hay> <two out of
three ain't bad> <if it ain't broke, don't fix it>. In fiction ain't
is used for purposes of characterization; in familiar correspondence
it tends to be the mark of a warm personal friendship. It is also used
for metrical reasons in popular songs <Ain't She Sweet> <It Ain't
Necessarily So>. Our evidence shows British use to be much the same as
American.


See?  It's a real word.  :)

~Ali

From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Thu Jun  5 15:56:53 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:56:53 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g290p3+vrhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g292c5+e9ig@eGroups.com>

> Alex:
> In a day and age when the word "ain't" is actually recognized as a 
> word in the dictionary, we grammar purists sometimes feel as though we 
> should acquiesce. But NO! I shall never stop teaching my children 
> proper grammar! It is our sworn duty to halt the influx of slang and 
> colloquialisms pervading the schools and our everyday lives! 
> 
> Magpie:
> Was ain't always considered wrong? 

Kemper:
I ain't thinking so.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun  5 20:22:34 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:22:34 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g292c5+e9ig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g29hua+i8jk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" <kempermentor at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Alex:
> > In a day and age when the word "ain't" is actually recognized as a 
> > word in the dictionary, we grammar purists sometimes feel as though we 
> > should acquiesce. But NO! I shall never stop teaching my children 
> > proper grammar! It is our sworn duty to halt the influx of slang and 
> > colloquialisms pervading the schools and our everyday lives! 
> > 
> > Magpie:
> > Was ain't always considered wrong? 
> 
> Kemper:
> I ain't thinking so.

Geoff:
When I was in my teens at grammar school in Sarf Lunnon - as all 
good Cockneys would call it, a standing joke was to say "Ain't ain't 
in the dictionary, ain't ain't".

It seems that the modern world has caught us up and nullifed that 
statement. Sad.
:-)

Geoff
PS Just to clarify. I'm not a good Cockney.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 03:22:27 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:22:27 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <g216mj+snjs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2cutj+bino@eGroups.com>

Mike:
> This makes me wonder about the increasing use of 's as the
possessive with names or words ending in s already; as in James's. <snip>
> 
> I'm of two minds here; I know what the rules is and naturally desire
to follow it. But the 's is such a good written description of the 
pronunciation that I have been oft tempted to and actually have used  it. 
> 
> And I always wondered what one does with a surname that ends in s. 
That is, if there is a James Dents and all the little Dents. How 
would one distinguish between one of the Dents owning something as 
opposed to the entire family owning it? If I were to say "Dents' 
automobile" am I referring to it as James' car or the Dents' family  car? 
> 
> I supposed I could just call it the "Dense car", though James may
not appreciate that. ;D

Carol responds:

I don't know whether Dents is a real last name or not, so let's try a
real name, James Jones.

"James" and "Jones" both form their singular possessives in the same
way as any other singular noun in English (with the exception of Jesus
and a few Greek names ending in -es, such as Xerxes or Hippocrates,
which merely add an apostrophe), bu adding apostrophe s. 

So you have "James's car" or "James Jones's car."

The plural for both names is formed using -es: "The class has two
Jameses and two Roberts"; "The Joneses are flying to Scotland for
Christmas this year."

The plural possessive is formed by adding an apostrophe to the already
plural noun, "Jameses" or "Joneses":

"The two Jameses' doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings" (I'd find
another way to word the idea); "the Joneses' house."

To sum up:
Singular possessive: 's
Plural: -es
Plural possessive: -es'

Compare any other singular noun that ends in "s" or "ss," for example,
"hostess."

Singular possessive "hostess's"; plural "hostesses"; plural possessive
"hostesses'." (I can't think of a singular noun other than a name that
ends in a single "s"' "Politics" doesn't count because it's plural but
construed as singular.)

Oh. If you really want to know, James Dents's family would be the
Dentses and their house would be "the Dentses'."

Carol, who hasn't read any of the responses in this thread and hopes
she's not repeating what's already been said







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 04:13:11 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:13:11 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's / that possessive 's
In-Reply-To: <4845D0BB.10308@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2d1sn+hsc@eGroups.com>

"Me" (CJ) wrote:
> 
> Well, I can't speak to the British situation, but in the U.S. there
is no consensus. Journalists generally just add the apostrophe; other 
> authorities insist on 's. In this situation "house rules" apply --
i.e., check with your publisher. <snip>

Carol responds:
I edit for a living, mostly American manuscripts, so I have to be
familiar with the style manuals.

A few independent U.S. book publishers (as well as some publishers of
magazines and newspapers) may allow a simple apostrophe after a
singular noun ending in "s," but most follow the Chicago Manual of
Style, which says:

"The general rule for possessives of nouns covers most proper nouns,
including most names ending in sibilants <snip sections listing
exceptions>. " Examples listed include: Kansas's, Burns's poems, the
Rosses' and the Williamsons' lands, Dickens's novels.

Names ending in silent s, z, or x form the possessive the same way
("Descartes's works").

Exceptions include Jesus', Moses', and a few names (mostly ancient
Greek) ending in -es (pronounced eez).

(CMS, fourteenth ed., sections 6.24-6.27) 

The style manual of the Modern Language Association, used for
scholarly works in the humanities, has the same rule.

MLA states clearly and simply: "To form the possessive of *any*
singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an 's' <snip examples>. To
form the possessive of any plural proper noun, add only an apostrophe"
(second ed. 3.4.7-3.4.8, emphasis mine).

Oddly, the APA (American Psychological Association) style manual
doesn't deal with either apostrophes or possessives.  Maybe the
publishers of such works expect authors to consult a standard
reference such as Strunk and White's famous "Elements of Style," the
very first line of which (not counting the introduction) is "Form the
possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." Examples include
"Charles's" and "Burns's."

You can't go wrong following CMS--or Strunk and White--if you're an
American writer other than a journalist following AP (Associated
Press) style.

Carol, who also consulted several publishers' style sheets available
online, including the one I'm linking to below, and found the exact
same rules.

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User/My%20Documents/StyleGuideV2.pdf










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 04:32:47 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:32:47 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g21am3+f8rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2d31f+j03v@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen@> wrote:
> >
 bboyminn:
> 
> But that is my very point, I'm not saying that "'s" pluralizes
> anything. I'm saying it /contracts/ a phrase already ending in
> "s"; 'TYPOgraphical errorS'. 
> 
> Consider, for example "int'l" for 'international'. The "'l"
> logically doesn't make it plural, it simply says that between
> the "t" and the "l" several letters have been left out. In
> other words, it is a contraction. 
<snip>
> 
> Also note that I searched Google for "typo's" and found
> 325,000 instances, which admittedly pales by comparison to
> a search for 'typos', but it says I'm not only one. Also
> note that one of those instances was National Public Radio. 
> 
> Certainly, as my search shows, "typo's" is not common, but
> again the question at hand is not whether "'s" pluralizes
> anything, but whether "typo's" is a valid contraction for 
> a plural phrase that already ends in "s"?
<snip>

Sorry, Steve. Contractions are mostly used for verb phrases:
Is not = isn't
You are = you're
he is = he's

"Int'l" and similar contractions are rare.

So the only possible contraction that would be spelled "typo's" would
mean "typo is," As in, "My most frequent typo's 'herslef,'" an awkward
 and ambiguous way of saying, "My most frequent typo is 'herslef.'"

Words contracted in the way you're speaking of, say, "Dr." for
"Doctor" in a name, contain no apostrophe. (In American English,
they're followed by a period, but the Brits are abandoning the
paractice.) Shortened words, such as the British "maths" for
"mathematics," also contain no apostrophes.

As for 35,000 instances of "typo's," I'm afraid that statistic only
illustrates how prevalent the misuse of apostrophes has become.

Just for fun, I Googled "toliet" as a deliberate misspelling of
"toilet" and got--I kid you not--, 1,090,000 hits! And I got 177,000
for "Hermoine," which does not make the transposition of the "o" and
"i" in "Hermione" name correct, however common the misspelling may be.

Carol, who stand's--er, stands--by her position that "typo's" is not a
contraction but a misspelling




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 05:20:40 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:20:40 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g22013+r9if@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2d5r8+7p55@eGroups.com>

Potioncat wrote:
> Carol is going to be sooooooo upset that she missed this! I hope her 
> computer is fixed soon.
> 
> I'd jump in...in support of her, even though I tend to be
Lancaterian while she is steadfast Yorkist. But more importantly,
everything I know about roses, red or white, I learned from historical
fiction, and  have long since forgot.

Carol responds:
I might as well join in, better late than never, even though I tend to
agree with a_svirn's position on the historical use of the white rose
(the Lancastrians didn't use the red rose during the Wars of the Roses
and neither side spoke of their struggle for the crown as a war of
anything. It was mostly factional squabbles among the various
Plantagenets and their retainers. Henry Tudor wasn't even a
Plantagenet, being descended on his mother's side from the
illegitimate children of John of Gaunt, later legitimized and given
the name Beaufort but still barred from inheriting the crown, and on
his father's side from a Welsh minstrel and the French wife of Henry V
(who also, of course, had no claim to the English throne).

As for Catlady's original question, I don't know of a mnemonic to help
her keep the red (ostensibly) Lancastrian rose straight from the white
rose of York. It's easier just to know the names of the Yorkist kings
(Edward IV and Richard III--I don't count the uncrowned boy king
Edward V) and the one Lancastrian king involved in the so-called Wars
of the Roses, Henry VI. White is associated with York: Richard's
symbol was a white boar for Eboracum, the Latin name for York (a pun
on "bor"/"boar"); Edward IV's the sunne in splendour/(white) rose en
soleil already explained by a-svirn.

If you're interested, the Richard III Society has all sorts of
material on the heraldry involved.

As for remembering which is red and which is white, I always associate
the Red Queen in "Alice's Adventures through the Looking Glass" with
Henry VI's militant French queen, Marguerite d'Anjou--but that won't
help if you're not familiar with her (or if you favor the Lancastrians
over the Yorkists).  
 
> Potioncat:
> And at this point Carol would encourage everyone to read "The Sun in
Splendor" (although the spelling might be different) about this point
in history. I will encourage you too. Except I have to admit becoming
quite fond of the characters and realizing about 1/3 of the way into
the book how it was all going to turn out for them, and so had to stop
reading.

Carol:
Right. That's Sharon Kay Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour," which
sounds like it's about Edward IV but is really mostly about his
youngest brother, Richard (aka Dickon), who becomes Richard III. I'd
recommend reading it all the way through even though it ends
tragically for most of the main characters. It's a well-researched
historical novel, obviously from the Yorkist perspective, and
well-written if you don't mind "we be" and a few other odd attempts at
making the language sound late medieval. BTW, I'd love to find a novel
favorably depicting Richard's sister Margaret of Burgundy, who
supported the claim of Perkin Warbeck to the throne of England after
Richard's death rather than support the Tydder (Henry Tudor).

Carol, who probably didn't help catlady at all!





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun  7 07:11:25 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:11:25 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2d5r8+7p55@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2dcat+6926@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

Carol:
As for remembering which is red and which is white, I always associate
> the Red Queen in "Alice's Adventures through the Looking Glass" with
> Henry VI's militant French queen, Marguerite d'Anjou--but that won't
> help if you're not familiar with her (or if you favor the 
Lancastrians
> over the Yorkists).  

Geoff:
To repeat something I wrtoe a few days ago when your computer may 
have been on holiday :-)

It's easy. Alphabetically, red precede white and Lancaster precedes 
York.

QED.

Geoff
(a real son of Lancashire)




From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Sat Jun  7 07:56:00 2008
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 17:56:00 +1000
Subject: London
In-Reply-To: <g2419t+ecrb@eGroups.com>
References: <g2419t+ecrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C0D88DD2F66440BDAB26077B67304DFE@ShaunPC>

Hello all,

I'm heading to London in September for a brief (too brief, really, but I 
have to fit it into school holidays) holiday, and I am trying to work out 
where to base myself. I just thought I'd ask people who might know the place 
better than I do (a lot of people) and who are better travelled than I am 
(also a lot of people) if they have any suggestions as to what areas I 
should look at as being a decent place to lay my head at night.

I intend to be using public transport to get around (particularly the 
underground) and I will probably want to hit some of the 'stereotypical' 
tourist sites - Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, British Museum (also 
open to any other suggestions people might have on this point). I also want 
to do a 'Jack the Ripper' walk one night.

Basically I'm asking, what areas are reasonably central (in terms of 
accessing public transport), and have a reasonable choice in terms of 
accomodation options. Cost is not a major concern, but on the other hand nor 
is luxury - I just want somewhere decent to sleep at night, I'm not planning 
on spending much more time than that at any hotel.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun  7 15:00:30 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:00:30 -0000
Subject: London
In-Reply-To: <C0D88DD2F66440BDAB26077B67304DFE@ShaunPC>
Message-ID: <g2e7qe+4nbv@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> 
> I'm heading to London in September for a brief (too brief, really, 
but I 
> have to fit it into school holidays) holiday, and I am trying to 
work out 
> where to base myself. I just thought I'd ask people who might know 
the place 
> better than I do (a lot of people) and who are better travelled 
than I am 
> (also a lot of people) if they have any suggestions as to what 
areas I 
> should look at as being a decent place to lay my head at night.
> 
> I intend to be using public transport to get around (particularly 
the 
> underground) and I will probably want to hit some of 
the 'stereotypical' 
> tourist sites - Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, British Museum 
(also 
> open to any other suggestions people might have on this point). I 
also want 
> to do a 'Jack the Ripper' walk one night.
> 
> Basically I'm asking, what areas are reasonably central (in terms 
of 
> accessing public transport), and have a reasonable choice in terms 
of 
> accomodation options. Cost is not a major concern, but on the other 
hand nor 
> is luxury - I just want somewhere decent to sleep at night, I'm not 
planning 
> on spending much more time than that at any hotel.

Geoff:
In transport terms, a Travelcard is ideal for geting around as it 
gives you access to bus, underground and surface rail. it's done on a 
zonal basis, Zone 1 being in the centre with a series of progressive 
rings out to Zone 6.

In some ways, I think that being on the south side is the best as 
there is quite a dense network of surface rail connections into 
Waterloo, Victoria and Charing Cross plus the Northern line and 
Victoria Line (tubes). Somewhere just off the main central area - 
Clapham, Stockwell or that sort of area might be worth exploring for 
B&B.

There are a number of nodes for tourists. You will find that 
Trafalgar Square is a good centre with Whitehall leading off it 
towards the Cenotaph, Horse Guards Parade, Downing Street and 
Parliament Square, Big Ben and such like while from the square, it is 
also easy access through Admiralty Arch into The Mall and down to 
Buckingham Palace. If you like walking, coming in from Victoria 
Station past Buckingham Palce up to Trafalgar Square, along to 
Parliament Sqaure returning directly via Victoria Street could give 
you a pretty good day.

The Tower of London and the Monument are further east.

That's just a few thoughts - there are lots of good guides and 
transport information is readily available.

Whatever, I hope you will have a good trip. September is often a good 
month weather wise....

Geoff




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 16:00:54 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:00:54 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g238ho+mlb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ebbm+442h@eGroups.com>

[susanmcgee48176]:
> > | Just found out that Sirius' mother's name was Walpurga ... <Snip>

[Lee]:
> > Really? How didst thee glean this information?

Carol responds:

With all those hogs and (winged) boars in the HP books (Hogwarts,
Hogsmeade, Hog's Head), JKR must be not only a Yorkist but a
Ricardian. And Albus (white) must be a Yorkist as well. ;-)

In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll forgive me for
pointing out that it's "didst thou" ("thee" is objective case; "thou"
is nominative case).

Carol, noting that Walburga Black (with a b, not a p) is so named,
along with her husband and second cousin, Orion, in the Black Family Tree




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 16:11:48 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:11:48 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g238lg+31ec@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ec04+o05q@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
> > Oh good.
> > 
> > With my "Tudor" background, it means I can stay on speaking terms 
> > with both of you.....

> > :-))

a_svirn: 
> Handy. Except Carol doesn't seem to like the Tudors either:-)

Carol: 
Right. Besides, Henry Tudor (Henry VII) was only a pseudo-Lancastrian
(I've already given his genealogy) who attempted (not altogether
successfully) to appease the Yorkists by marrying Elizabeth of York,
daughter of Edward IV, so his son Henry VIII did have Yorkist blood on
his mother's side. I doubt that her wishes were consulted in the
matter of her marriage, however. Together, the two Henrys managed to
execute almost all the remaining Yorkist heirs.

I'll forgive Geoff his affinities, though!

Carol, wishing that history could be altered and Richard III restored
to the throne, with Henry Tudor soundly and permanently defeated




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 16:23:00 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:23:00 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g23odu+8uef@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ecl4+vamp@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
> No, but I therefore have links to both sides. Whichever one is on
the up, I can justifiably wave the appropriate flag - or rose and thus
cheer for Potioncat or Carol according to what is relevant to the
occasion.
> :-)
>
Carol responds:
That's really sweet, and I wish for your sake that I could like the
Tudors. Maybe young Edward VI a little bit. Fortunately, Potioncat and
I are usually on the same side, at least in HP-related matters!

Carol, still wearing her roses white




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 16:40:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:40:46 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g255m8+gjcr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2edme+652h@eGroups.com>

Susan McGee wrote:
> Isn't that interesting? All the historical novels I've read were
pro-Yorkist, too......
> 
> But of course, Shakespeare is pro-Lancaster.....which probably makes
up for all the historical novels!

Carol:
Or necessitates them as a corrective! (Shakespeare wouldn't dare to
have written from a Yorkist perspective during the reign of a Tudor
queen. I'm not sure how James Stuart would have felt about it;
probably much the same. Henry VII had succeeded in blackening Richard
III's reputation by that time, not to mention that it's prudent always
to support the victor even if you know better. Shakespeare probably
believed that Richard had had his nephews suffocated and that he was a
"wicked" king, so in his view it was acceptable to distort the facts
by inventing physical defects for Richard; having Richard (as the Duke
of Gloucester) and his brother George (as the Duke of Clarence) fight
in a battle that occurred when Richard was eight and George eleven (in
one of the Henry VI plays); and by adding to Richard's supposed
crimes--all for the sake of entertainment. Shakespeare's "Richard III"
may be a great play, but it's terrible history. It's interesting,
however, that Henry VII doesn't rate a play!)

Carol, who will probably reread "The Sunne in Splendour" after this
discussion!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 17:00:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:00:08 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0806040902q1695d131ue8a5913c12b6ea2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g2eeqo+qgab@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen"
<alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > Oddly, once again, my American Heritage dictionary shows >SNIP<
> > but no 'maths'. Though I suspect if I had an Oxford Dictionary
> > things would be different.

Ali: 
> Merriam-Webster (online because I don't own English-English
dictionaries) shows maths, saying that it's (1) chiefly British and
(2) function is "noun plural," which is in keeping with standard [US]
English conventions.
> 
Carol responds:
I just checked and you're correct (except for the part about "in
keeping with standard U.S. conventions," which I don't understand and
don't see in the description. U.S. English does not treat
"mathematics" as plural, so why would it treat "maths" that way if it
were used by an American?). I thought M-W Online would say that
"maths" is "plural but usually singular in construction," which is how
it describes "mathematics." Americans would say "mathematics is [a
difficult subject]" and (naturally) "math is [a difficult subject]."
Would the British say "mathematics are" and "maths are," treating both
as plural just because they end in "s"?

Carol, whose ears are still ringing from "government are" in Jayne's
Noah's ark joke even though I'm already familiar with that aspect of
British usage




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 17:23:32 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:23:32 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Typo's
In-Reply-To: <g290p3+vrhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2eg6k+isd3@eGroups.com>

Magpie:
> Was ain't always considered wrong? 

Carol responds:

"Ain't" (originally spelled "an't" and probably pronounced "ant"--see
"David Copperfield," for example) started out as a contraction for "am
not" and was considered correct (though informal) used with "I," but,
of course, ungrammatical used with any other pronoun or any noun
whatever. I'm not sure when or why "an't" became "ain't" but it may
have become associated with illiteracy at about the same time.

(I realize that M-W Online says that it's a contraction of "are not,"
but Online Etymology says:

"1706, originally a contraction of 'am not,' and in proper use with
that sense until it began to be used as a generic contraction for 'are
not,' 'is not,' etc., in early 19c. Cockney dialect of London,
popularized by representations of this in Dickens, etc., which led to
the word being banished from correct English."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=a&p=7

Carol, who remembers being shocked at proper little David
Copperfield's saying "I an't" when she first read the book in eighth grade



Carol




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 17:44:33 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:44:33 -0000
Subject: London
In-Reply-To: <C0D88DD2F66440BDAB26077B67304DFE@ShaunPC>
Message-ID: <g2ehe1+oebg@eGroups.com>

Shaun Hately wrote:
>
> <snip>
> 
> I'm heading to London in September for a brief (too brief, really,
but I have to fit it into school holidays) holiday, and I am trying to
work out where to base myself. I just thought I'd ask people who might
know the place better than I do (a lot of people) and who are better
travelled than I am (also a lot of people) if they have any
suggestions as to what areas I should look at as being a decent place
to lay my head at night.
> 
> I intend to be using public transport to get around (particularly the 
> underground) and I will probably want to hit some of the
'stereotypical' 
> tourist sites - Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, British Museum
(also 
> open to any other suggestions people might have on this point). I
also want 
> to do a 'Jack the Ripper' walk one night.
> 
> Basically I'm asking, what areas are reasonably central (in terms of 
> accessing public transport), and have a reasonable choice in terms
of accomodation options. Cost is not a major concern, but on the other
hand nor is luxury - I just want somewhere decent to sleep at night,
I'm not planning on spending much more time than that at any hotel.


Carol responds:
If you're going to be doing any research, you might consider London
House, an extremely inexpensive hostel for scholars. Of course, you
won't have a bathroom in your room, so you'll have to use communal
showers (reasonably private) and restrooms, erm, toilets. There's a
private quad in the middle, just like you'd find at Hogwarts or, I
assume, and Oxford "college."

When I stayed there in 1995, it was within easy walking distance of
the British Museum, which has since been moved, and of Bloomsbury and
Dickens House--and several "tube" stations if you want to get
downtown. There's also a post office and a few shops and restaurants
nearby, but I usually ate in the cafeteria. I never did master English
money--those heavy pound coins and five-cent pieces that look like
dimes!--and that was *after* the conversion to the decimal system!

I went to London alone, an untraveled American who always looked the
wrong way first before crossing streets, and had no trouble finding
Westminster Abbey (hint: don't go on a Sunday!) the National Portrait
Gallery or traveling to Oxford on the "Oxford Tube" (really a bus or
train) from Victoria Station. Another hint: Don't even try to figure
out the bus routes. Use the Underground.

Carol, who would love to go back to England, preferably with a
companion and sufficient time and money to take a Ricardian tour 




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Sat Jun  7 20:45:42 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 20:45:42 -0000
Subject: Ain't   was: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling
In-Reply-To: <g2eg6k+isd3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2es1m+1gbb@eGroups.com>

> Carol:
> "Ain't" (originally spelled "an't" and probably pronounced "ant"--see
> "David Copperfield," for example) ...
> I'm not sure when or why "an't" became "ain't" but it may
> have become associated with illiteracy at about the same time.

Kemper now:
That's curious.  Moby Dick, an ocean away, was published at about the
same time as David Copperfield.  In the first chapter, Ishmael, a
scholar turned sailor (ok, he was a school teacher) asks the reader,
"Who ain't a slave? Tell me that."

Of course... I don't know if the first edition had 'an't' instead of
'ain't'.  Or maybe the pronunciation of 'an't' changed in America, and
Melville reflected that.

25 years or so later, Tom Sawyer's Aunt Polly gently laughs and asks
herself about Tom, "Ain't he played me tricks enough like that for me
to be looking out for him by this time?"

Twain quotes himself, in A Tramp Abroad, as yelling at the age of 10
(circa 1845), "Fire, fire! JUMP AND RUN, THE BOAT'S AFIRE AND THERE
AIN'T A MINUTE TO LOSE!"  Of course, the book was written some 30+
years later, so maybe he said 'an't' or even 'isn't'.  Just scanning
his non-fiction, I haven't noticed any use of the word 'ain't' that
isn't in a quote.  But don't hold me to that being true.

Kemper





From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com  Sat Jun  7 21:13:46 2008
From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:13:46 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2ec04+o05q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2etma+fn5s@eGroups.com>

 "Carol" wrote

 
> Carol, wishing that history could be altered and Richard III restored
> to the throne, with Henry Tudor soundly and permanently defeated

I have always wanted to go back and change history so the above 
happened as well Carol. I think Richard would have made a fine king.
I liked His brother too
I will go and read Sun in Splendour too (for the tenth time )as I love 
the way the relationship between Richard and his brother Edward is 
played out. It would make a great film IMHO
Great writing !!!!

Jayne
A great Richard fan although I have welsh blood in me 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun  7 22:28:13 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:28:13 -0000
Subject: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling - Math's
In-Reply-To: <g2eeqo+qgab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2f21t+kl45@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
Carol:

> Would the British say "mathematics are" and "maths are," treating both
> as plural just because they end in "s"?

Geoff:
I think I basically answered this point in post 36800.




From Mhochberg at aol.com  Sat Jun  7 23:39:17 2008
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mhochberg at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:39:17 EDT
Subject: Suggestions for HP themed computer classes
Message-ID: <cc1.364e2c38.357c7625@aol.com>

Hi!
 
With the end of the school year fast approaching, I've come up with a  "last 
day of computer lab" classes for the elementary schools where I work. My  
current lesson plans call for taking 1st grade classes to the Scholastic HP  site. 
Grade 2/3 classes will go to the Bloomsbury site and the grade 4/5 classes  
will visit JK's site. I will be in costume as a visiting professor from 
Hogwarts  and will present this material as a "History" class.
 
While the classes will be a lot of fun, there will also be some muggle  
topics covered. One will be on the importance of being careful about sharing  
personal information with people on the Internet (just as Ginny Weasley shared  
with Tom Riddle). JK's website will provide an opportunity for students to  
experience websites in different languages as well as "text only."
 
I would appreciate any addition ideas on muggle content as well as any HP  
ideas or ways to tie to the two together.
 
Thanks!
 
---Mary
"Live now, procrastinate  later."



**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with 
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 04:26:33 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:26:33 -0000
Subject: Ain't   was: Seeking Grammar Police Ruling
In-Reply-To: <g2es1m+1gbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2fn1p+3ntm@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > "Ain't" (originally spelled "an't" and probably pronounced
"ant"--see "David Copperfield," for example) ... I'm not sure when or
why "an't" became "ain't" but it may have become associated with
illiteracy at about the same time.
> 
> Kemper now:
> That's curious.  Moby Dick, an ocean away, was published at about
the same time as David Copperfield.  In the first chapter, Ishmael, a
 scholar turned sailor (ok, he was a school teacher) asks the reader,
"Who ain't a slave? Tell me that."
> 
> Of course... I don't know if the first edition had 'an't' instead of
'ain't'.  Or maybe the pronunciation of 'an't' changed in America, and
Melville reflected that.
> 
> 25 years or so later, Tom Sawyer's Aunt Polly gently laughs and asks
herself about Tom, "Ain't he played me tricks enough like that for me
to be looking out for him by this time?"
> 
> Twain quotes himself, in A Tramp Abroad, as yelling at the age of 10
(circa 1845), "Fire, fire! JUMP AND RUN, THE BOAT'S AFIRE AND THERE
AIN'T A MINUTE TO LOSE!"  Of course, the book was written some 30+
years later, so maybe he said 'an't' or even 'isn't'.  Just scanning
his non-fiction, I haven't noticed any use of the word 'ain't' that
isn't in a quote.  But don't hold me to that being true.
> 
> Kemper
>
Carol responds:
Obviously, Ishmael, as a schoolmaster, could well represent correct
English of his time--though he's philosophizing colloquially in what I
can only call the style of an educated seaman (the narrative is not
contemporary with the events in "Moby Dick"--he's seen a bit of "the
watery part of the world" since then). Here's the context, so you can
judge for yourself:

"Do you think the archangel Gabriel thinks anything the less of me,
because I promptly and respectfully obey that old hunks {an old sea
captain] in that particular instance? Who ain't a slave? Tell me that.
Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about--however
they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction of knowing
that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other served
in much the same way--either in a physical or metaphysical point of
view, that is; and so the universal thump is passed round, and all
hands should rub each other's shoulder-blades, and be content." 

Schoolmaster or not, Ishmael reflects the New England dialect of his
time, and, unlike David Copperfield, he's not a gentleman, in the
sense of an Englishman born into the gentry, Americans having
abandoned the concepts of gentry and aristocracy along with royalty
and an established church. Would, say, a Harvard-educated American of
Ishmael's time have said "ain't"? I don't know. 

Aunt Polly, on the other hand, is not well-educated. She probably
attended a one-room schoolhouse for six years or so (as Tom does when
he's not playing hooky), and she speaks in a Southern dialect not very
different from the wholly uneducated Pap Finn's. And Twain himself, or
should we say Samuel Clemens, since he's quoting his private persona,
is speaking Southern dialect in the quoted instance. His narrative
style is more formal and correct than the dialogue he's quoting. It's
like a Cockney speaking in dialect at home but speaking BBC English
("received pronunciation") in a job interview or at work.

I don't think, however, that Twain/Clemens considered "ain't" to be
proper English, any more than he thought that Huckleberry Finn and Tom
Sawyer could spell correctly. Melville's Ishmael is a bit more
difficult to figure out. I don't think that "Moby Dick" was edited, at
least not much, and any significant differences would be between the
British and American first editions rather than the American first
edition and the manuscript. At one point, he (Melville as Ishmael)
even refers to Stubbs as the third mate, and nobody caught it.

Carol, trying to recall whether Byron or Shelley ever used "ain't" (or
"an't") and thinking that they didn't (though Byron managed to rhyme
"Juan" with "ruin"! <eg>)




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun  8 17:40:13 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 8 Jun 2008 17:40:13 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/8/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1212946813.10.58044.m44@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 8, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20080608/3e60217f/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  8 22:50:43 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:50:43 -0000
Subject: /Walpurga - The Black Family Tree
In-Reply-To: <g273og+j956@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hno3+l3pq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" <zanooda2 at ...> wrote:
> 
> She is actually Walburga, not Walpurga, although I'm sure they are 
> just the two versions of the same name :-). There was a saint named 
> Walburga, IIRC - I once needed to do research on St. Hedwig and I 
> think I saw St. Walburga on the same list of saints.

Whoever she was, her Saint's Day is May 1, so May Eve (the night
before May 1st, like Christmas Eve is the night before Christmas) is
called Walpurgisnacht in German: Walpurga's Night. Which is the pun in
JKR's statement that before Voldemort took over the Death Eaters, they
were a group called the Knights of Walpurgis.

I have made up a story in which this is more than just a pun. In that
old time when real wizards and witches were persecuted by Muggles (the
reason given by Professor Binns for why the location of Hogwarts is
secret), a Healer named Walpurga insisted on helping everyone who
asked her for help, even Muggles. Thus, it was commonly known that she
did healing magic. So some Muggle witch-haters called her to treat a
patient but really it was an ambush and they took away her wand and
killed her. 

So some wizards who had been talking about protecting wizard folk from
Muggle violence by taking revenge on the Muggles who did it were so
outraged by this that they turned words into action, naming themselves
in her memory. If they started trying to kill the Muggles who had done
the crime, they soon settled for killing any Muggles who were handy.
This did not result in Muggles ceasing to persecute wizards. After the
Statute of Secrecy, they changed their activities to sitting around
sulking about not being allowed to take revenge on Muggles.




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  8 23:00:32 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:00:32 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2ec04+o05q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hoag+pg5g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Carol, wishing that history could be altered and Richard III restored
> to the throne, with Henry Tudor soundly and permanently defeated

I learned from Josephine Tey that Richard III was a good man and a
good king, but what would be different NOW if he had kept his throne?
The only good thing I ever hear anyone say about Henry VII (7) was
that he wrote 'Greensleeves', but without Henry VIII (8) would England
still be Catholic, with an Inquisition? 

Elizabeth I is said to have been a genius at getting her country's
economy up and growing prosperous - without her, would it be like
Spain or Italy was before the European Economic Community started
subsidizing them? How would that have affected the colonization of the
Americas - would there now be only Spanish speaking, Portuguese
speaking, French speaking countries in the Americas, or would the
Dutch colonies have grown?

Without Elizabeth I, I imagine there wouldn't have been James I, and
while he personally would be good riddance, would England and Scotland
still be separate countries, with Scotland allying with France against
England? That would have made the twentieth century's two Great Wars
rather different.





From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  8 23:08:16 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:08:16 -0000
Subject: / War of Roses/
In-Reply-To: <g22mh0+hlu8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hop0+109b3@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "susanmcgee48176"
<Schlobin at ...> wrote:

> OKAY, the WAR of the ROSES...one of my favorite topics.
> The whole DEAL is that Edward III had too many sons!

My friend Lee keeps saying that, but just because he had a lot of sons
doesn't mean their offspring had to keep fighting each other to take
the throne away from the legal heir. 

> Richard, the third duke of York was the great-grandson of Edmund of
> Langley, fourth son of Edward III through his father, and the 
> grandson of Lionel, second son of Edward II through his mother Anne
> de Mortimer. His mother's claim was more important, even though he 
> was the duke of "York." 

So it was just a co-incidence that the side opposing Lancaster was
named after the county next door to Lancaster? 






From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun  8 23:20:35 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:20:35 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2d5r8+7p55@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hpg3+2km2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> White is associated with York: Richard's symbol was a white boar for 
> Eboracum, the Latin name for York (a pun on "bor"/"boar"); 

The white boar was Richard's personal badge, right? Why did he have a
personal badge punning on York when he personally was Gloucester?

What does Eboracum mean in Latin (don't answer 'York').




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Jun  8 23:44:11 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:44:11 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2hpg3+2km2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hqsb+dgun@eGroups.com>

> Catlady:
 
> What does Eboracum mean in Latin (don't answer 'York').

Goddlefrood:

As this:

http://www.britainexpress.com/cities/york/roman.htm

would tell you it means the place of the yew trees, but has other 
variants.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sun Jun  8 23:52:10 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:52:10 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War
 of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2ebbm+442h@eGroups.com>
References: <g238ho+mlb0@eGroups.com> <g2ebbm+442h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7AFC79139B4B460797F792DD8ECB7F3A@FRODO>

[Lady Carol of the Hogwarts Editorial Staff wrote:
| In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll forgive me for
| pointing out that it's "didst thou" ("thee" is objective case; "thou"
| is nominative case).

[Lee]:
Ah--then we'll also have to correct Frances Hodgson Burnett for her use of
"thee" in _The_Secret_Garden.  In her refs to Yorkshire speech, she has
characters saying things , "Why can thee not..." or "how did thee find..."
(don't ask me for chapter and page, please!) :-)

Glad you've got your computer back up and running.  I just had a hellacious
time recovering my inbox after deleting its entire contents.  I've only lost
4 days worth of personal mail, one piece of which broke my heart.  But,
considering, it could have been much more worserer! (Nyah-Nyah to the
grammar police.) :-)

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 01:04:28 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:04:28 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2hoag+pg5g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2hvis+td3a@eGroups.com>

> > Carol, wishing that history could be altered and Richard III
restored to the throne, with Henry Tudor soundly and permanently defeated

Catlady: 
> I learned from Josephine Tey that Richard III was a good man and a
good king, but what would be different NOW if he had kept his throne?
> The only good thing I ever hear anyone say about Henry VII (7) was
that he wrote 'Greensleeves', but without Henry VIII (8) would England
still be Catholic, with an Inquisition? 
> 
> Elizabeth I is said to have been a genius at getting her country's
economy up and growing prosperous - without her, would it be like
Spain or Italy was before the European Economic Community started
subsidizing them? How would that have affected the colonization of the
Americas - would there now be only Spanish speaking, Portuguese
speaking, French speaking countries in the Americas, or would the
Dutch colonies have grown?
> 
> Without Elizabeth I, I imagine there wouldn't have been James I, and
while he personally would be good riddance, would England and Scotland
still be separate countries, with Scotland allying with France against
England? That would have made the twentieth century's two Great Wars
rather different.
>
Carol responds:

Henry VII wrote "Greensleeves"? I seriously doubt it. He was not a
musical or a romantically inclined man. He was very serious, very
practical, and very concerned about his own reputation and power. he
did, however, once give some money to "a demosel who daunceth"--more
than he gave to John Cabot for discovering Newfoundland. Henry VIII is
a much more likely composer of the song. *He* loved his pleasures (as
did his Yorkist grandfather, Edward IV).

England never had an inquisition that I know of (though the
Lancastrian* Henry V's brother John, Duke of Bedford, took part in the
burning of Joan of Arc in France), and Richard III was remarkably
tolerant of proto-Protestantism for a late-medieval Catholic monarch.
He even had his own Wycliffe Bible in English in addition to the usual
Catholic Bible in Latin.

I wouldn't credit Henry VIII with any form of religious tolerance. He
just wanted to be the head of the Church of England so that he could
divorce Catherine of Aragon.

As for colonization of the Americas, Columbus went to the cheapskate
Henry VII for funding and didn't receive it. Richard III, I'm quite
sure, would have given it to him. So the English might actually have
settled the New world before the Spanish. Sure, we might all be
Catholic, but we'd be speaking English.

The development of Protestantism in England, it would have been
different, but it would have happened. But England wouldn't have had
Catholic monarchs killing Anglican subjects (Mary I) and vice versa
(Henry VIII, Elizabeth I). The Puritan overthrow of an English monarch
might have taken place just as it did, but the monarch would have been
a Catholic Plantagenet instead of an ostensibly Anglican Stuart with
Catholic sympathies. Or, maybe, without the Stuarts and their belief
in their own divine right to rule, the Commonwealth wouldn't have
happened. Impossible to say. Maybe we wouldn't have had Puritans
fleeing to North America for religious freedom only to deny it to
others, but one way or another, the English would have settled the New
World--and probably the same northern latitudes given the climate of
their homeland.

At any rate, I can't imagine England not being influenced in some way
or other by the Protestant Reformation. It might have become
Presbyterian, like Scotland, rather than Anglican--or some other
monarch besides Henry VIII might have had Protestant leanings and
broken away from the Catholic Church--for better reasons than a desire
to divorce one woman and marry another (whom he later had beheaded).

Carol, whose allergies are very annoying today and whose posts
consequently may be unintelligible

* I didn't list Henry V and his father Henry IV as Lancastrian kings
yesterday because they predate the Wars of the Roses. Henry IV deposed
and imprisoned his childless cousin Richard II and may have had him
killed.




From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Jun  9 01:21:28 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:21:28 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2hvis+td3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2i0io+9t7a@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> But England wouldn't have had Catholic monarchs killing Anglican 
> subjects (Mary I) and vice versa (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I).

Carol, you know a lot more history than I do, but this is a point that
I always argue with my friend Lee about. *I* am very impressed with
Elizabeth I for not having killing any Catholic subjects for religious
reasons. The *only* person she ever killed for heresy is variously
described as an Arian or a Unitarian, but his offense was denying the
Trinity. But Lee is not impressed that Elizabeth I didn't kill her
Catholics, just because she had other oppressions upon them.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 01:59:33 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:59:33 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2hpg3+2km2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2i2q5+97c5@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> 
> > White is associated with York: Richard's symbol was a white boar
for Eboracum, the Latin name for York (a pun on "bor"/"boar"); 

Catlady: 
> The white boar was Richard's personal badge, right? Why did he have
a personal badge punning on York when he personally was Gloucester?

Carol responds:
Both his older brother Edward IV and their father, also named Richard,
had been dukes of York. Richard's badge shows his loyalty to the House
of York, as does his motton, "Loyaultie me lie" (loyalty binds me).

Catlady: 
> What does Eboracum mean in Latin (don't answer 'York').

Carol:
I don't think that it means anything in Latin. It's the Latinization
of a Celtic name, whose translation depends on the source you're
consulting. The one I like best is "place of the yew trees."

Anyway, despite his title, Richard had few personal connections with
Gloucester and many with the City of York, which wrote a moving
epitaph for him after he was "piteously slain and murdered." He was
raised in the household of his much older cousin, Richard Neville,
Earl of Warwick, at Middleham Castle in North Yorkshire, and Middleham
became his home after he married Warwick's daughter (his first cousin
once removed). So while his loyalty was to Edward and the House of
York, his heart belonged to York itself. As Lord of the North, he was
admired and loved. His tragedy, IMO, is that he wanted to recreate
that experience in the very different, intrigue-filled atmosphere of
London.

Carol, who thinks that "The Sunne in Splendour" will give Catlady a
better idea than "Daughter of Time" of Richard III and his earlier
self, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (from a Yorkist perspective, of course) 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 02:31:53 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:31:53 -0000
Subject: Grammar police (thee/thou) Was: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel
In-Reply-To: <7AFC79139B4B460797F792DD8ECB7F3A@FRODO>
Message-ID: <g2i4mp+tk6p@eGroups.com>

[Lady Carol of the Hogwarts Editorial Staff wrote:
> | In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll forgive me for
pointing out that it's "didst thou" ("thee" is objective case; "thou"
is nominative case).
> 
> [Lee]:
> Ah--then we'll also have to correct Frances Hodgson Burnett for her
use of "thee" in _The_Secret_Garden.  In her refs to Yorkshire speech,
she has characters saying things , "Why can thee not..." or "how did
thee find..." (don't ask me for chapter and page, please!) :-)

Carol:
Ah. That's a different matter--Yorkshire dialect rather than
Shakespearean English (or the English of the King James Bible).
Apparently, like some Quakers (others retained both "thee" and
"thou"), the people of Yorkshire clung to "thee" as the singular form
of "you" while discarding "thou." It's supposed to indicate intimacy
(like "you familiar" in other languages) or, in the case of the
Quakers, equality. The nominative (subjective) plural, "ye," was also
discarded in those dialects, IIRC.
 
Lee:
> Glad you've got your computer back up and running.  I just had a
hellacious time recovering my inbox after deleting its entire
contents.  I've only lost 4 days worth of personal mail, one piece of
which broke my heart.  But, considering, it could have been much more
worserer! 

Carol:
I know what you mean. I've lost more than a year's worth of e-mail on
at teast two occasions. Sometimes, computers are more trouble than
they're worth, and yet I'm lost without mine. I went back to reading
to entertain myself, plus a bit of editing by hand on pages I printed
out before I took in the computer, but actually handwrite a letter?
I've probably forgotten how!

Lee:
(Nyah-Nyah to the grammar police.) :-)

Carol:
Detention for you for such heresy! You will write "I will not
nyah-nyah the grammar police" one hundred times, to be turned in to me
at this time tomorrow. No excuses. :-P!!

Carol, who is, of course, just joking about the lines




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 03:22:21 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:22:21 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2i0io+9t7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2i7ld+2rkd@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince
Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > But England wouldn't have had Catholic monarchs killing Anglican 
> > subjects (Mary I) and vice versa (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I).
> 
> Carol, you know a lot more history than I do, but this is a point that
> I always argue with my friend Lee about. *I* am very impressed with
Elizabeth I for not having killing any Catholic subjects for religious
reasons. The *only* person she ever killed for heresy is variously
described as an Arian or a Unitarian, but his offense was denying the
Trinity. But Lee is not impressed that Elizabeth I didn't kill her
Catholics, just because she had other oppressions upon them.
>
Carol responds:
Hi, Catlady. I'm no expert on Elizabeth I, but I was under the
impression that she started out tolerant, merely fining Catholics for
not attending Anglican services, but later imprisoned them and even
had them executed as traitors after the Pope excommunicated her and
the various Catholic uprisings convinced her that Catholics were
traitors. Possibly, their being executed for treason conceals the fact
that they were Catholic.

I found the following list of English Catholics executed between 1558
and 1604 (Elizabeth's reign) on Wikipedia:

    * John White, bishop, 1560
    * Sister Isabel Whitehead, Benedictine nun
    * Richard Whiting, Abbot of Glastonbury, 1539
    * John Ackridge, priest, 1585
    * Thomas Ackridge, Franciscan, 1583
    * John Adams, priest, 1586
    * Thomas Alfield, priest, 1585
    * John Almond, Cistercian, 1585
    * John Amias, priest, 1589
    * Robert Anderton, priest, 1586
    * William Andleby, priest, 1597
    * William Baldwin (Bawden), priest, 1588
    * Christopher Bales, priest, 1590
    * Thomas Bedal, priest, 1590
    * George Beesley, priest, 1591
    * William Blackburne, priest, 1586
    * John Bodey, priest, 1583
    * Edmund Bonner, bishop, 1569
    * John Boste, Saint, priest, 1594
    * Gilbert Bourne, bishop, 1569
    * Richard Bowes, priest, 1590
    * John Boxall, priest, 1571
    * Alexander Briant, Jesuit priest, 1581
    * James Brushford, priest, 1593
    * Christopher Buxton, priest, died Canterbury, 1588
    * Edmund Campion, Jesuit priest, 1581
    * William Chedsey, priest, 1561
    * James Claxton (Clarkson), priest, 1588
    * James Clayton, priest, 1588
    * Henry Cole, priest, 1580
    * Laurence Collier, Franciscan, 1590
    * John Collins, priest, 1584
    * Henry Comberford, priest, 1584
    * John Cornelius, Jesuit priest, 1594
    * Thomas Cotesmore, priest, 1584
    * Thomas Cottam, Jesuit priest, 1582
    * Richard Creagh, archbishop of Armagh, 1585
    * Ralph Crockett, priest, 1588
    * Alexander Crowe, priest, 1587
    * Thomas Crowther, priest, 1585
    * Robert Dalby, priest, York, 1589
    * William Davies, priest, 1594
    * William Dean, priest, 1588
    * Richard (Robert) Dibdale]], priest, 1586
    * Francis Dicconson, priest, 1590
    * Roger Dicconson, priest, 1591
    * George Douglas, priest, 1587
    * Anthony Draycott, priest, 1570
    * Edmund Duke, priest, 1590
    * Edward Edwardes (alias Campion), priest, 1588
    * John Feckenham, Benedictine, abbot of Westminster, 1585
    * Thomas Felton, Franciscan, 1588
    * James Fenn, priest, 1584
    * John Fenwick, Jesuit priest, 1579
    * John Finch, priest, 1584
    * John Finglow, priest, 1586
    * William Freeman, priest, 1595
    * Thomas Gabyt, Cistercian, 1575
    * Nicholas Garlick, priest, 1588
    * Miles Gerard, priest, 1590
    * Nicholas Grene, priest, 1571
    * - Gretus, priest
    * John Griffith (alias Jones), Saint, Franciscan friar, 1598
    * William Gunter, priest, 1588
    * William Hambledon, priest, 1585
    * John Hambley, priest, 1587
    * Everard Hanse, priest, 1581
    * Nicholas Harpsfield, priest, 1575
    * William Harrington, priest, 1594
    * John Harrison, priest, 1586
    * William Harrison, priest, 1594
    * William Hart, priest, 1583
    * William Hartley, priest, 1588
    * Thomas Harwood, priest, 1586
    * Richard Hatton, priest, 1584
    * George Haydock, priest, 1584
    * Nicholas Heath, archbishop of York, 1578
    * Thomas Hemerford, priest, 1584
    * John Hewitt, priest, 1588
    * Richard Hill, priest, 1590
    * John Hogg, priest, 1590
    * Thomas Holford, priest, 1588
    * Richard Holliday, priest, 1590
    * Robert Holmes, priest, 1584
    * Richard Horner, priest, 1598
    * Francis Ingleby, priest, 1586
    * John Ingram, priest, 1594
    * Edward James, priest, 1588
    * Edmund Jennings (Genings), Saint, priest, 1591
    * John Jetter, priest, 1585
    * Lawrence Johnson, priest, 1582
    * Edward Jones, priest, 1590
    * Luke Kirby, Saint, priest, 1582
    * Joseph Lambton, priest, 1593
    * Richard Leigh, priest, 1588
    * James Lomax, priest, 1584
    * John Lowe, priest, 1586
    * Robert Ludlam, priest, 1588
    * William Marsden, priest, 1586
    * Roger Martin, priest, 1592
    * Cuthbert Mayne, Saint, priest, 1577
    * Thomas Metham, Jesuit, 1592
    * Anthony Middleton, priest, 1590
    * Robert Morton, priest, 1588
    * Thomas Mudde, Cistercian, 1583
    * John Munden, priest, 1584
    * John Nelson, priest, 1577
    * George Nichols, priest, 1589
    * John Nutter, priest, 1584
    * Robert Nutter, priest, 1600
    * Edward Oldcorne, Jesuit priest, 1561
    * Edward Osbaldeston, priest, 1594
    * Antony Page, priest, 1593
    * Thomas Palasor, priest, 1600
    * Richard Pate, bishop, 1565
    * William Patenson, priest, 1592
    * John Payne, Saint, priest, 1582
    * Thomas Pilchard, priest, 1587
    * Polydore Plasden, priest, 1591
    * Thomas Plumtree, priest, 1570
    * Edward Pole, priest, 1585
    * David Poole, bishop, 1568
    * Thomas Pormort, priest, 1592
    * Alexander Rawlins, priest, 1595
    * Christopher Robinson, priest, Carlisle, 1598
    * John Robinson, priest, 1588
    * John Roche, priest, 1588
    * Stephen Rowsham, priest, 1587
    * John Sandys, priest, 1586
    * Montford Scott, priest, 1591
    * Thomas Sedgwick, priest, 1573
    * Richard Sergeant, priest, 1586
    * Martin Sherson, priest, 1587
    * John Shert, priest, 1582
    * Peter Snow, priest, 1598
    * Robert Southwell, priest, 1595
    * William Spenser, priest, 1589
    * Thomas Sprott, priest, 1600
    * James Stonnes, priest, 1585
    * John Storey, Chancellor to Bishop Bonner, 1571
    * Edward Stransham, priest, 1586
    * Robert Sutton, priest, 1587
    * Edmund Sykes, priest, 1587
    * Robert Sympson (or Richard Sympson), priest, 1588
    * Gabriel Thimelby, priest, 1587
    * Richard Thirkeld, priest, 1583
    * Thomas Thirlby, bishop, 1570
    * James Thompson, priest, York, 1582
    * John Thompson, Jesuit
    * William Thomson, priest, 1586
    * Hugh Taylor, priest, York, 1585
    * Robert Thorpe, priest, 1591
    * Edward Thwing, priest, 1600
    * James Turberville, bishop, 1570
    * Lawrence Vaux, priest, 1585
    * Roger Wakeman, priest, 1584
    * Sir Edward Waldegrave, 1561
    * Henry Walpole, Saint, priest, 1595
    * Edward Waterson, priest, 1593
    * Thomas Watson, bishop of Lincoln, 1584
    * William Way (alias May or Flower), priest, 1588
    * Swithin Wells, priest, 1591
    * Richard Weston, Jesuit
    * Christopher Wharton, priest, 1600
    * Eustace White, priest, 1591
    * Robert Wilcox, priest, 1588
    * Richard Williams, priest, 1592
    * Thomas Wood, priest, 1588
    * John Woodcock, Franciscan, 1646
    * Nicholas Woodfen, priest, 1586
    * Richard Yaxley, priest, 1589

I don't know how accurate it is or whether Elizabeth herself had a
hand in their deaths. According to the article, "The vast majority
were executed under treason laws which were amended to make refusing
to assent to the royal supremacy over the Church, or being (or
harbouring) a Catholic priest, into treasonable offences. Those
convicted were liable under the treason laws to be executed by a
process of hanging, disembowelling while still alive, and the body
then being hacked into quarters - and some of the martyrs were
executed in this manner, although others were either hanged in the
"normal" way or beheaded. Few, if any, were burned alive, the usual
means of execution of religious dissenters under Catholic regimes at
the time."

FWIW, here's a link to the article itself if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation#1561_-_1600

Wasn't it during Elizabeth's reign (1585) that being a Roman catholic
priest in England became a treasonable offense? Jesuits and other
Catholic priests were expelled from England and harboring one was also
a capital offense.

Here's a quote from another article (and my apologies for using
Wikipedia as my source, but that's where Google is leading me): "Under
laws passed during the reign of Elizabeth, it was high treason for an
individual to attempt to defend the jurisdiction of the Pope over the
English Church for a third time (a first offence being a misdemeanour
and a second offence a felony), or for a Roman Catholic priest to
enter the realm and refuse to conform to the English Church."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_treason_in_the_United_Kingdom

I have no personal stake in the matter (it's no fault of Elizabeth's
that she was Henry VII's granddaughter <smile>), so I'll be happy to
listen to your defense of her. I'm not sure, for example, how much
influence a monarch of the time had over laws passed by Parliament.
Could all those people have been killed for political reasons, or did
their high treason in many cases (1585-1604) consist solely of being
(or harboring) a Roman Catholic priest in Elizabethan England?

Carol, who would be equally happy to hear a defense of "Bloody" Mary,
whose executions of Anglican "heretics" are seldom defended





From n2fgc at arrl.net  Mon Jun  9 03:46:01 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 23:46:01 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Grammar police (thee/thou) Was: JK Rowling pens
 a Harry Potter prequel
In-Reply-To: <g2i4mp+tk6p@eGroups.com>
References: <7AFC79139B4B460797F792DD8ECB7F3A@FRODO> <g2i4mp+tk6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <391CB074F3184CBE8DEC401BA938A76B@FRODO>

| Lee:
| (Nyah-Nyah to the grammar police.) :-)
| 
| Carol:
| Detention for you for such heresy! You will write "I will not
| nyah-nyah the grammar police" one hundred times, to be turned in to me
| at this time tomorrow. No excuses. :-P!!

[Lee]:
Well, guess what:
Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah!!!! <Hee-He-He Haah-Haaaah! :-))

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From LynnKQuinn at aol.com  Mon Jun  9 05:24:35 2008
From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn1)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:24:35 -0000
Subject: Can someone please release me
Message-ID: <g2ieqj+urlt@eGroups.com>

I am having e-mails sent to me by this group and I cannnot recall my 
screen name or password to stop them. The e-mails are being sent to 
LynnKQuinn at aol.com. 

TIA for your help




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun  9 06:10:58 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:10:58 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2ebbm+442h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ihhi+95ho@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll 
> forgive me for pointing out that it's "didst thou" 
> ("thee" is objective case; "thou" is nominative case).

Geoff:
I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that 
surely "thee" - which I agree is referring to 
an object - is however actually the accusative 
case.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 09:56:13 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:56:13 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2hvis+td3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2iunt+7j28@eGroups.com>

> Catlady: 
> > I learned from Josephine Tey that Richard III was a good man and a
> good king, but what would be different NOW if he had kept his 
throne?
> > The only good thing I ever hear anyone say about Henry VII (7) was
> that he wrote 'Greensleeves', but without Henry VIII (8) would 
England
> still be Catholic, with an Inquisition? 
> > 
> > Elizabeth I is said to have been a genius at getting her country's
> economy up and growing prosperous - without her, would it be like
> Spain or Italy was before the European Economic Community started
> subsidizing them? How would that have affected the colonization of 
the
> Americas - would there now be only Spanish speaking, Portuguese
> speaking, French speaking countries in the Americas, or would the
> Dutch colonies have grown?
> > 
> > Without Elizabeth I, I imagine there wouldn't have been James I, 
and
> while he personally would be good riddance, would England and 
Scotland
> still be separate countries, with Scotland allying with France 
against
> England? That would have made the twentieth century's two Great Wars
> rather different.
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> Henry VII wrote "Greensleeves"? I seriously doubt it. He was not a
> musical or a romantically inclined man. <snip> Henry VIII is
> a much more likely composer of the song. *He* loved his pleasures 
(as
> did his Yorkist grandfather, Edward IV).

a_svirn:
There is a legend that Henry VIII wrote "Greensleeves". He was a very 
musical man, and did indeed write some songs. However, there is no 
proof that "Greensleeves" was his creation. 

> Carol:
> England never had an inquisition that I know of (though the
> Lancastrian* Henry V's brother John, Duke of Bedford, took part in 
the
> burning of Joan of Arc in France), 

a_svirn:
You make it sound like he had personally tied her to the stake. He 
was the regent of France (The English France, naturally) and oversaw 
the trial and the execution. However, it was the French who condemned 
her. Not that I imagine Bedford had anything against the verdict. Why 
should he have? Anyway, he was a very decent sort, a good soldier, a 
good governor, loyal and fair man. Even his enemies respected him. 
Which is more that can be said of his other relatives, whether from 
the house of York, or from the house of Lancaster. I believe that Tay 
was alluding to the burnings of Lollards when she was takling about 
the Lancastrian "inquisition". 

> Carol:
and Richard III was remarkably
> tolerant of proto-Protestantism for a late-medieval Catholic 
monarch.

a_svirn:
Was he, though? In what way? He certainly was pious (founded 
religious colleges and so on), but tolerant? 


> Carol:
> I wouldn't credit Henry VIII with any form of religious tolerance. 
He
> just wanted to be the head of the Church of England so that he could
> divorce Catherine of Aragon.

a_svirn:
On that we are in the total agreement. 


> Carol: 
> The development of Protestantism in England, it would have been
> different, but it would have happened. But England wouldn't have had
> Catholic monarchs killing Anglican subjects (Mary I) and vice versa
> (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I). The Puritan overthrow of an English 
monarch
> might have taken place just as it did, but the monarch would have 
been
> a Catholic Plantagenet instead of an ostensibly Anglican Stuart with
> Catholic sympathies. 

a_svirn:
They did overthrow a catholic monarch in France. All in all I think 
the English were better off with Cromwell that with Robespierre. 

> Carol: 
> * I didn't list Henry V and his father Henry IV as Lancastrian kings
> yesterday because they predate the Wars of the Roses. Henry IV 
deposed
> and imprisoned his childless cousin Richard II and may have had him
> killed.

a_svirn:
He didn't, however, kill or even imprison in the Tower his young 
cousin March, who had a much better claim to the throne (and passed 
it subsequently to Richard of York). So points to Henry. We have one 
Prince in the Tower less we could otherwise have. 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 10:10:40 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:10:40 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2i2q5+97c5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ivj0+iapt@eGroups.com>

> Carol earlier:
> > 
> > > White is associated with York: Richard's symbol was a white boar
> for Eboracum, the Latin name for York (a pun on "bor"/"boar"); 
> 
> Catlady: 
> > The white boar was Richard's personal badge, right? Why did he 
have
> a personal badge punning on York when he personally was Gloucester?
> 
> Carol responds:
> Both his older brother Edward IV and their father, also named 
Richard,
> had been dukes of York. Richard's badge shows his loyalty to the 
House
> of York, as does his motton, "Loyaultie me lie" (loyalty binds me).

a_svirn:
In fact, no one knows for sure why he chose the boar badge. 
The "Eboracum" is only one of the explanations. As for his so called 
motto, he only used it only once, as far as we know, and in the 
circumstances that make it sound singularly cynical ? when he 
effectively arrested his own sovereign in Stony Stratford and 
disbanded his household. On his official Order of the Garter plate he 
used another motto to go with the Boar emblem. 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 10:12:40 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:12:40 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2i0io+9t7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ivmo+lq5v@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67@> 
wrote:
> >
> > But England wouldn't have had Catholic monarchs killing Anglican 
> > subjects (Mary I) and vice versa (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I).
> 
> Carol, you know a lot more history than I do, but this is a point 
that
> I always argue with my friend Lee about. *I* am very impressed with
> Elizabeth I for not having killing any Catholic subjects for 
religious
> reasons. The *only* person she ever killed for heresy is variously
> described as an Arian or a Unitarian, but his offense was denying 
the
> Trinity. But Lee is not impressed that Elizabeth I didn't kill her
> Catholics, just because she had other oppressions upon them.
>

There were lots of Catholics persecuted under Elisabeth. Granted they 
were persecuted as traitors, rather than Catholics, but their treason 
was in not recognizing Elisabeth as a head of the Church. 
a_svirn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 10:48:00 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:48:00 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2i7ld+2rkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j1p0+3m42@eGroups.com>

> Carol:
> I have no personal stake in the matter (it's no fault of Elizabeth's
> that she was Henry VII's granddaughter <smile>), so I'll be happy to
> listen to your defense of her. I'm not sure, for example, how much
> influence a monarch of the time had over laws passed by Parliament.
> Could all those people have been killed for political reasons, or 
did
> their high treason in many cases (1585-1604) consist solely of being
> (or harboring) a Roman Catholic priest in Elizabethan England?

a_svirn:
The real problem was the rival Catholic claimant to Elisabeth's 
throne, Mary Stuart. There was any number of catholic pro-Mary 
conspiracies, which explains Elisabeth's administration implacable 
attitude towards Catholicism. Also, the international situation 
should be taken into account. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 
France (1572) didn't help English Catholics either, especially since 
Sir Francis Walsingham, the head of Elizabeth's intelligence was in 
Paris at the time (as an ambassador) and was very nearly killed as 
well. The experience made him even less inclined to tolerate 
Catholics in England. 	

 
> Carol, who would be equally happy to hear a defense of "Bloody" 
Mary,
> whose executions of Anglican "heretics" are seldom defended

Well, she forbore to have Elisabeth executed after the Wyatt 
rebellion. I suppose it is a point in her favor. 
a_svirn





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun  9 10:49:50 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:49:50 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2i7ld+2rkd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j1se+tb4p@eGroups.com>


> Carol responds:
snip
> 
> I found the following list of English Catholics executed between 1558
> and 1604 (Elizabeth's reign) on Wikipedia:

Potioncat:
How carefully did you review the list of names? Appears to me that at 
least one was executed for wizardry, no matter what the records say. 
I'm snipping to the last name.

>     * Richard Yaxley, priest, 1589





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun  9 10:55:44 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:55:44 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2iunt+7j28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j27g+b32b@eGroups.com>

 
> > Carol: 
> > * I didn't list Henry V and his father Henry IV as Lancastrian kings
> > yesterday because they predate the Wars of the Roses. Henry IV 
> deposed
> > and imprisoned his childless cousin Richard II and may have had him
> > killed.


Potioncat:
My history is weaker than I thought. I always thought the War of the 
Roses referred to the whole York-Lancaster rivalry starting with John 
of Gaunt's generation. I didn't realise it was specific to the later 
set of battles. So my interest has always been towards the earlier 
generations, while Carol's has been to the more recent ones.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 11:00:55 2008
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:00:55 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2j1se+tb4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2j2h7+tupq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> > Carol responds:
> snip
> > 
> > I found the following list of English Catholics executed between 
1558
> > and 1604 (Elizabeth's reign) on Wikipedia:
> 
> Potioncat:
> How carefully did you review the list of names? Appears to me that at 
> least one was executed for wizardry, no matter what the records say. 
> I'm snipping to the last name.
> 
> >     * Richard Yaxley, priest, 1589
>
I don't know what was stated in the official verdict, but in reality he 
and his three fellows were executed in Oxford for their Catholicism. 
They all were "graduates" of the Catholic academy in Reims (Yaxely was 
actually rather high ranked). The academy was a refuge for English 
Catholic clergy at the time, and Walsingham's spys were busy at work 
finding and identifying people who were associated with this 
institution. All indentified ended up at best in prison (and on the 
rack), and pretty often on the scaffold. (There is very reliable 
evidence that Christopher Marlow was one of such spies.  In Cambridge 
though). 
a_svirn.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Mon Jun  9 14:19:36 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:19:36 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Suggestions for HP themed computer classes
In-Reply-To: <cc1.364e2c38.357c7625@aol.com>
References: <cc1.364e2c38.357c7625@aol.com>
Message-ID: <E2D6B2B39D2746099CD931E1B59662C5@FRODO>

[Mhochberg]:
| Hi!
|  
| With the end of the school year fast approaching, I've come 
| up with a  "last 
| day of computer lab" classes for the elementary schools where 
| I work. My  
| current lesson plans call for taking 1st grade classes to the 
| Scholastic HP  site. 
| Grade 2/3 classes will go to the Bloomsbury site and the 
| grade 4/5 classes  
| will visit JK's site. I will be in costume as a visiting 
| professor from 
| Hogwarts  and will present this material as a "History" class.
|  
| While the classes will be a lot of fun, there will also be 
| some muggle  
| topics covered. One will be on the importance of being 
| careful about sharing  
| personal information with people on the Internet (just as 
| Ginny Weasley shared  
| with Tom Riddle). JK's website will provide an opportunity 
| for students to  
| experience websites in different languages as well as "text only."
|  
| I would appreciate any addition ideas on muggle content as 
| well as any HP  
| ideas or ways to tie to the two together.

[Lee]:
Hmm--know of any HP kids lists that might interest them?  And tie the
personal info into that, too, as in don't put it on the list or give it
privately to list-members without consulting their folks, etc.  That, IMHO,
can *Never* be emphasized enough with kids as well as some "big kids." :-)

Having the JKR site up as a screen activity can certainly set the mood, to.
I should send you the little wave files I made for my computer:
Windows comes up with an "Alohomora" and the sound of an opening door with a
bit of reverb on it; I shut down with "Mischief Managed" and the clunk of a
vault door closing, again with reverb.  Guess I figured the reverb would be
reminiscent of large Hogwarts hallways. :-)  Oh, yeah--my mail is announced
with an owl, of course. :-)

If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.

Cheers, and good luck!

Lee :-)




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Jun  9 17:31:04 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:31:04 -0000
Subject: Can someone please release me
In-Reply-To: <g2ieqj+urlt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2jpco+qnmq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "eyemlynn1" <LynnKQuinn at ...>
wrote:
>
> I am having e-mails sent to me by this group and I cannnot recall my 
> screen name or password to stop them. The e-mails are being sent to 
> LynnKQuinn at ... 
> 
> TIA for your help
>

bboyminn:

LynnKQuinn at ... is your email address, but eyelynn1 is probably your
screen name or user name. I'm sure there is a mechanism for resetting
your password if you know your screen name. Usually, the new password
is sent to the default email address for that user account.

Now, if you have more than one user name for this group, and you are
receiving email under that other username, there should be some
indication in the email address as to who you are.

For example, your current posting shows "eyemlynn1" <LynnKQuinn at ...> ,
you should see something similar in the emails you are receiving.

If you go to the on-line sign-in page for email -

https://login.yahoo.com/config/login_verify2?&.src=ym

You will see under the [Sign-In] button, this message -

"Forget your ID or password?"

which will take you to this link -

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/reg/login1/lisu/forgot_lib/us/ym/*https://edit.yahoo.com/config/eval_forgot_pw?new=1&.done=http%3A//mail.yahoo.com&.src=ym&partner=&.intl=us&pkg=&stepid=&.pd=ym_ver%3d0%26c=&.ab=&.last=

There you should be able to recover you username from your email
address, or recover you password from your username.

Once you are able to access the account again, go into the Account
Settings and set your account to only read on-line, and that will stop
the emails from coming, but will still allow you to view the contents
of the group at the group website.

Steve/bboyminn





From drdara at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 00:10:20 2008
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: funny gif
Message-ID: <272420.2383.qm@web65505.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

this is soo funny, you may have to watch it twice, sorry if it umm offends anyone
danielle

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: danielle dassero <drdara at yahoo.com>
To: drdara at yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 6:09:18 PM
Subject: 

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/ntz_bltz4u/?action=view?t=GeorgeBush.gif


      



From bekkio at gmail.com  Tue Jun 10 01:46:31 2008
From: bekkio at gmail.com (Bekki Olivieri)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:46:31 -0700
Subject: Portus and Barnes and Noble Booksellers Join Together to Support Literacy
Message-ID: <561bdbfa0806091846r26014235r26e00ebdaedabc0b@mail.gmail.com>

For five years, HPEF has helped to promote the spread of literacy by
producing magical events for fans and scholars. Now it is your turn to
help share your love of reading and the Harry Potter novels, just by
purchasing your summer reading list at any Barnes & Noble Booksellers
the weekend of June 20-22, 2008.

All purchases, outside of textbooks, gift cards, and B&N membership
cards, will help support future HP Education Fanon events, include
PORTUS in Dallas, LEVEL TWO in San Jose, and INFINITUS at the
Universal Orlando Resort. All you need to do is tell the cashier the
Bookfair number 310268, or provide the voucher
(http://www.portus2008.org/bookfair_voucher.pdf) upon checkout.
Whether you purchase a mocha and a scone in the Cafe or your third
copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a portion of the
proceeds will go to help support future HPEF events.

You can also help support the Dallas area charity, LIFT (Literacy
Instruction for Texas) by purchasing an item off the LIFT Wish List.
Any books purchased for LIFT will be used in providing literacy
classes to adults surrounding the Dallas area. LIFT was created to
address the critical adult literacy issues in Dallas through programs
which are accessible to adults at the lowest levels of literacy. With
specialized ESL and Family Literacy programs, LIFT focuses on those
who would normally be overlooked or ignored in standard educational
initiatives. A child's educational success is greatly increased by a
parent who reads and reads with the child. We all know the joy reading
Harry Potter has brought to us. Let's pass that joy on by making a
donation of a book to LIFT.

If you have a meet up group, and would like to host a meet up at a
Barnes & Noble the weekend of June 20-22, please send us an email to
pr at portus2008.org.

Please pass along this along to your friends, family, and fellow Harry
Potter fans. Anyone can help by purchasing during the Bookfair. This
is an event they won't want to miss!

Magically yours,
Bekki Olivieri
Minister of Magic, Portus 2008



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 01:55:55 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:55:55 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2ihhi+95ho@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kmvb+c3o3@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll forgive me for
pointing out that it's "didst thou" ("thee" is objective case; "thou"
is nominative case).
> 
> Geoff:
> I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that surely "thee" - which
I agree is referring to an object - is however actually the accusative
case.
>
Carol responds:
Possibly you're thinking of Latin. English doesn't have an accusative
case; the English cases are subjective (corresponds to nominative),
objective (corresponds to accusative), and possessive (corresponds to
genitive). And, of course, we use prepositions to indicate the
relationships expressed through the dative and ablative cases in
Latin, so those cases have no English equivalent.

>From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
    thee 
Pronunciation:
    \th\
Function:
    pronoun 

archaic objective case of thou
1 a?used especially in ecclesiastical or literary language and by
Friends especially among themselves in contexts where the objective
case form would be expected b?used by Friends especially among
themselves in contexts where the subjective case form would be
expected 2: thyself

>From an online English grammar site:

"Grammar Handbook: Noun and Pronoun Case

"Case refers to how nouns and pronouns are used in relation to the
other words in a sentence. The three cases are subjective, objective,
and possessive. See below for a chart of pronoun cases."

The site also notes that subjective case is sometimes called
nominative case (which excuses my own little slip with "thou" <smile>)
but it says nothing about objective case (in English) ever being
called accusative case.

Carol, who taught English for eighteen years and really does know
these things




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 02:21:26 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:21:26 -0000
Subject: The war about  The War of the Roses
In-Reply-To: <g2j1se+tb4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2kof6+tnf3@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> snip
> > 
> > I found the following list of English Catholics executed between
1558 and 1604 (Elizabeth's reign) on Wikipedia:
> 
> Potioncat:
> How carefully did you review the list of names? Appears to me that
at least one was executed for wizardry, no matter what the records
say.  I'm snipping to the last name.
> 
> >     * Richard Yaxley, priest, 1589

Carol again: I saw Yaxley. I also saw (after I posted) a couple of
names that shouldn't have been in that particular list because the
dates were wrong. We can hardly accuse Elizabeth (or her
administration) of executing Catholics who died in 1649!

Carol, suspecting that Yaxley was a Jesuit 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun 10 06:55:31 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:55:31 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2kmvb+c3o3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2l8h3+knim@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > In the name of the grammar police, I hope you'll forgive me for
> pointing out that it's "didst thou" ("thee" is objective case; "thou"
> is nominative case).
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that surely "thee" - which
> I agree is referring to an object - is however actually the accusative
> case.
> >
> Carol responds:
> Possibly you're thinking of Latin. English doesn't have an accusative
> case; the English cases are subjective (corresponds to nominative),
> objective (corresponds to accusative), and possessive (corresponds to
> genitive). And, of course, we use prepositions to indicate the
> relationships expressed through the dative and ablative cases in
> Latin, so those cases have no English equivalent.

Geoff:
I'm thinking of Latin, German and Russian which have 6,4 and 
7 cases respectively. I would agree with you that there is often 
confusion in the use of "thou" and its various case derivatives.

I don't recall ever using case names in English. In addition to 
using prepositions as you rightly point out, we do retain some 
elements of the old case structure, mainly in personal pronouns.
We /do/ have an equivalent of dative in English; in the phrase "give 
him the book", "him" is a dative without a preposition.

When I was at school, we studied English grammar in great depth and 
had to do clause analysis which very often required us to describe the 
function of almost every word in a sentence. It's a very thorough 
discipline and gave me a great insight into the format of my own
 language. That, coupled with Latin and reading Julius Caesar in the 
original Latin (De Bello Gallico) gave me a love of language and 
linguistics which have remained a great interest ever since. Just as an 
aside, I am fascinated by the links between the Celtic languages in 
the UK, especially Welsh, (Scots) Gaelic and Cornish.

I too taught English at one point in my career, mainly to adults in 
night school. But, as the 1928 Hadow Report worded it, "Every 
teacher is a teacher of English".




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 16:50:34 2008
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:50:34 -0000
Subject: funny gif
In-Reply-To: <272420.2383.qm@web65505.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2mbcq+i71e@eGroups.com>

> danielle wrote:
>
> this is soo funny, you may have to watch it twice, sorry if it umm
> offends anyone


http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/ntz_bltz4u/?
action=view?t=GeorgeBush.gif

Mike:
I'd like to view it at least once, to see if I'm offended, but this 
link won't work. I even pasted the whole URL, still I was sent to the 
home page and asked to sign in or join. I tried to paste it into the 
search function on the home page, that got me nowhere too.

Danielle, do you have to be a member to view this?




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 18:32:34 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:32:34 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel
 / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2l8h3+knim@eGroups.com>
References: <g2l8h3+knim@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <484EC8C2.70907@yahoo.com>

Carol:
.... the English cases are subjective (corresponds to nominative),
objective (corresponds to accusative), and possessive (corresponds to
genitive).

Me:
A minor correction here: what modern grammarians like to call the 
"objective" case in English is really a merging of both the accusative 
and the dative of Old English.

Geoff:
I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that surely "thee" - which
I agree is referring to an object - is however actually the accusative
case.

Carol:
Possibly you're thinking of Latin. English doesn't have an accusative
case....

Me:
But "thou" and "thee" are fixed-form remnants of Middle English, which 
did have nominative and accusative cases. Therefore Geoff is correct 
here: "thee" is (both) the accusative (and dative) form of the 
nominative "thou".

CJ




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 18:48:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:46 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2l8h3+knim@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2miae+g6ba@eGroups.com>


> Geoff:
> I'm thinking of Latin, German and Russian which have 6,4 and 7 cases
respectively. I would agree with you that there is often confusion in
the use of "thou" and its various case derivatives.

Carol responds:
As you probably know, English began as a synthetic language
(Anglo-Saxon) which, like Latin, which depended primarily on
morphology (inflected endings) for grammatical meaning but is now
primarily an analytic language, which depends more on word order
(syntax) than morphology. That's why we now have only three cases, as
opposed to five for Anglo-Saxon. 

Geoff: 
> I don't recall ever using case names in English. In addition to
using prepositions as you rightly point out, we do retain some
elements of the old case structure, mainly in personal pronouns. We
/do/ have an equivalent of dative in English; in the phrase "give him
the book", "him" is a dative without a preposition.

Carol:
You're right that we retain cases primarily in pronouns, though nouns
have a possessive form in addition to the form used for subjects and
objects. But what you're calling "dative" is the objective case, used
for direct objects, indirect objects (as in your example, with an
implied "to"), and objects of prepositions. Subjective: he; objective:
him; possessive: his. ("She," "I," "you," and "they" have two
possessive forms each: "her," "hers"; "my," "mine"; "your," "yours";
"their," "theirs," but still only three cases.)
> 
> When I was at school, we studied English grammar in great depth and
had to do clause analysis which very often required us to describe the
function of almost every word in a sentence. <snip>

Carol responds:
Are you referring to diagramming sentences? I had to do that in eighth
grade, but since I already understood the concepts of, say, direct
object, indirect object, and predicate nominative, I don't think it
did me any good. I certainly couldn't diagram a sentence now if I were
asked to do so.

Carol, wondering why she's suffering from allergies when the pollen
count is only moderate




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 18:49:30 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:49:30 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel
 / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <7AFC79139B4B460797F792DD8ECB7F3A@FRODO>
References: <g238ho+mlb0@eGroups.com> <g2ebbm+442h@eGroups.com> <7AFC79139B4B460797F792DD8ECB7F3A@FRODO>
Message-ID: <484ECCBA.4040003@yahoo.com>

Lee Storm:
then we'll also have to correct Frances Hodgson Burnett ... "Why can 
thee not..." or "how did thee find..."

Atrocious grammar! Correct her post haste. Forgive her never.  Should be 
"Why canst thou not..." and "How didst thou find..."

"Thou" (nominative) generally took verbs ending in -st. "Thee" 
(accusative/dative) doesn't belong anywhere near the above sentences.

I've never read _The Secret Garden_, but if it's got more than a 
smattering of the above, I don't think I could finish it.

CJ




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 19:11:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:11:37 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <484EC8C2.70907@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2mjl9+1j6c@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> .... the English cases are subjective (corresponds to nominative),
> objective (corresponds to accusative), and possessive (corresponds
to genitive).
> 
Me [CJ, not "me", Carol!]:
> A minor correction here: what modern grammarians like to call the
"objective" case in English is really a merging of both the accusative
and the dative of Old English.

Carol responds:
The term "objective case" makes perfect sense since English uses the
same pronoun form for objects of whatever type: direct objects,
indirect objects, and objects of prepositions. There's no need to
distinguish accusative from dative when there's no distinction in form.

Carol earlier:
> Possibly you're thinking of Latin. English doesn't have an
accusativecase....
> 
> Me [CJ]:
> But "thou" and "thee" are fixed-form remnants of Middle English,
which did have nominative and accusative cases. Therefore Geoff is
correct here: "thee" is (both) the accusative (and dative) form of the
nominative "thou".

>
Carol responds:
It *functions* as both accusative and dative, but it's *called*
objective, at least as retained in Modern English, which has no
accusative or dative cases. The same applies to early Modern English
of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, when "thee" and "thou" were
still in use.

"In Early Modern English, there were two second-person personal
pronouns: thou, the informal singular pronoun, and ye, which was both
the plural pronoun and the formal singular pronoun (like modern French
tu and vous or the German du and Sie). (Thou was already falling out
of use in the Early Modern English period, but remained customary for
addressing God and certain other solemn occasions, and sometimes for
addressing inferiors.) Like other personal pronouns, thou and ye had
different forms depending on their grammatical case; specifically,
objective form of thou was thee, its possessive forms were thy and
thine, and its reflexive or emphatic form was thyself <snip>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English#Pronouns

Carol, noting that the accusative and dative cases merged with Early
Modern English, becoming what modern grammarians label "the objective
case" at that point, there being no point in distinguishing the cases
when the forms were the same




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 20:32:40 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:32:40 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <484ECCBA.4040003@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2mod8+8m63@eGroups.com>

Lee Storm wrote:
> then we'll also have to correct Frances Hodgson Burnett ... "Why can
thee not..." or "how did thee find..."

CJ responded: 
> Atrocious grammar! Correct her post haste. Forgive her never. 
Should be "Why canst thou not..." and "How didst thou find..."
<snip>
> 
> I've never read _The Secret Garden_, but if it's got more than a
smattering of the above, I don't think I could finish it.
> 

Carol responds:
I was thinking that this incorrect use of "thee" might be Yorkshire
dialect, but it seems that even the rustic Yorkshire characters in
Emily Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" know "thee" from "thou." Little
Hareton says, "Now wilt thou be ganging?" (basically, "Now will you be
going?" with the implication of "Get out before I set my dog on you")
and old Joseph says, "Hareton, thou willn't sup thy porridge toneeght;
they'll be naught but lumps as big as my neive" (basically, "Hareton,
you won't eat your porridge tonight; there'll be nothing but lumps as
big as my [?}--I don't know what "neive" means.)

Maybe when Burnet wrote "The Secret Garden," "thou" was going out of
use among the people of Yorkshire, replaced by "thee," as it was in
some Quaker sects. (Anyone recall the song lyric "Thee is mine" from
"Friendly Persuasion"? Apparently, the film follows the book and the
book reflects real usage among some but not all Quakers of the time.)

Carol, just speculating but glad that she's not the only one who cares
about the  properuse of "thee" and "thou"




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Jun 10 20:35:32 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:35:32 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2mjl9+1j6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2moik+7n1m@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> It *functions* as both accusative and dative, but it's *called*
> objective, at least as retained in Modern English, which has no
> accusative or dative cases. The same applies to early Modern English
> of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, when "thee" and "thou" were
> still in use.

Geoff:
But that isn't correct,  because the very reason we are discussing this 
matter is that Modern English /has/ these objective cases or 
accusative/dative cases  because of the very existence of him/her/me/us et al.
 
Carol:
> "In Early Modern English, there were two second-person personal
> pronouns: thou, the informal singular pronoun, and ye, which was both
> the plural pronoun and the formal singular pronoun (like modern French
> tu and vous or the German du and Sie). (Thou was already falling out
> of use in the Early Modern English period, but remained customary for
> addressing God and certain other solemn occasions, and sometimes for
> addressing inferiors.) Like other personal pronouns, thou and ye had
> different forms depending on their grammatical case; specifically,
> objective form of thou was thee, its possessive forms were thy and
> thine, and its reflexive or emphatic form was thyself <snip>"
 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English#Pronouns

Carol, noting that the accusative and dative cases merged with Early
Modern English, becoming what modern grammarians label "the objective
case" at that point, there being no point in distinguishing the cases
when the forms were the same
 
Geoff:
I have to say that, on occasions, I take Wikipedia with a pinch of salt 
because I have found unreliable data in some areas - not this one 
necessarily but I put up against your quote a separate quote from 
the same source which could be read as contradicting your quote...

"The accusative case (abbreviated ACC) of a noun is the grammatical 
case used to mark the direct object of a transitive verb. The same case 
is used in many languages for the objects of (some or all) prepositions. 
Basically, it is a noun that is having something done to it, usually joined 
(such as in Latin) with the Nominative case.

<snip information not relevant to this discussion>

Modern English, which almost entirely lacks declension in its nouns, 
still has an explicitly marked accusative case in a few pronouns as a 
remnant of Old English, an earlier declined form of the language. 
"Whom" is the accusative case of "who"; "him" is the accusative case 
of "he"; and "her" is the accusative case of "she". These words also 
serve as the dative case pronouns in English and could arguably be 
classified in the oblique case instead. Most modern English 
grammarians feel that due to the lack of declension except in a 
few pronouns, where accusative and dative have been merged, that 
making case distinctions in English is no longer relevant, and 
frequently employ the term "objective case" instead."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case)

I would emphasise "/most/ modern English grammarians" which 
implies that although the usage exists, the use of nominative/accusative
/dativeis still valid and chimes with someone like myself who is 
familiar with the terms in at least two other languages.

Again, the quote draws parallels which are not quite comparable because, 
in German, there are three second-person personal pronouns - the 
singular informal "Du", the plural informal "Ihr" and the formal version 
"Sie".

Grammaticum dormiens nunquam titillandus.
:-)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 21:10:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:10:46 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2moik+7n1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2mqkm+kf9h@eGroups.com>

Oops. Premature post deleted! I'll try again:
> 
Carol earlier:
> > It *functions* as both accusative and dative, but it's *called*
objective, at least as retained in Modern English, which has no
accusative or dative cases. The same applies to early Modern English
of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, when "thee" and "thou" were
still in use.
>
> Geoff:
> But that isn't correct, because the very reason we are discussing
this matter is that Modern English /has/ these objective cases or
accusative/dative cases because of the very existence of
him/her/me/us et al.

Carol again:
I don't quite understand you. Middle English had *already lost* the
inflections that distinguished accusative from dative case in Old
English. So Middle English *already* had objective case in place of
the other two, which had merged, the distinction in form having been lost.

You don't like Wikipedia (neither do I, really), so here's another source:

"Beginning in the Middle English period (A.D. 1100-1500), pronouns
began to look more like those we use. Below is a table of Middle
English pronouns.
Subjective Objective Possessive
First-person singular ich, I, ik me mi; min
Second-person singular thou thee thi, thin
Third-person singular he, she (hye), it (hit) him (hine), here
(hi), it (hit) his, hires (here), his

"First-person plural we us our, oure, oures
Second-person plural ye you your, youre, youres
Third-person plural hi, they, thai hem, heom, them, thaim, theim her,
here, their, theire, heres, theirs

"Along with some exotic words and spelling, notice that in Middle
English you could only be the second-person plural objective pronoun.
In the other places we use you today, Middle English speakers instead
used ye, thou, and thee.

"The movement from Middle English to Modern English took place during
A.D. 1500_1800. Shakespeare wrote during the late 1500s and early
1600s, and the King James Bible was first produced in 1611, so the
language in those works is Early Modern English. Below is a table of
the pronouns used in Early Modern English.
Subjective Objective Possessive
First-person singular I me my/mine
Second-person singular thou thee thy/thine
Third-person singular he (a), it (hit), she him, it (hit), her his,
its (it, his), hers

"First-person plural we us our/ours
Second-person plural ye/you you/ye your/yours
Third-person plural they them (hem, em) their/theirs

"As you can see, the familiar you and your has shown up, and the
spelling of many of the other pronouns is becoming standardized as
regional variants gradually disappear. At the same time, the thou,
thee, thy, and thine that still characterize some English speech
(Amish, for instance) are still in wide use."

http://wps.ablongman.com/long_hult_nch_3/0,9398,1483953-,00.html

Carol again:
Forgive the spacing glitches. I tried to fix them and somehow posted
prematurely. You can see how it's supposed to look by going to the
website.

My point is, English *lost* the accusative and dative cases, which
*merged* to become the objective case, when it lost the inflections
that distinguished those two cases. And that merger occurred at a time
when "thee" and "thou" were in use.

Carol, not sure what she has posted today because she keeps losing
posts by going to promising sites that turn out to be Google books
(don't go there unless you want a browser error that knocks you offline)




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 22:00:09 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:00:09 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel
 / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2miae+g6ba@eGroups.com>
References: <g2miae+g6ba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <484EF969.7060102@yahoo.com>

Carol:
But what you're calling "dative" is the objective case, used
for direct objects, indirect objects (as in your example, with an
implied "to")

But the modern "objective" case is, roughly speaking, simply the 
"dative" renamed. And I think it's a bit anachronistic to read an 
implied "to" in "Give him the ball" just to shoehorn the sentence into 
the "objective" case. I'd go along with Geoff here that this is the 
dative case (one of its remnants), in origin different from "Give the 
ball to him" (or even "Give to him the ball"), which is the accusative.

The problem with the modern term "objective case" is that it's a 
catch-all for at least the accusative and dative cases, and hence tends 
to cloud up linguistic analysis. While the two forms "Give him the ball" 
and "Give the ball to him" may be semantically equivalent in modern 
English, they are both etymologically and syntactically quite distinct, 
the "him" in "Give him the ball" deriving from the Old English 
accusative "hine", and the "him" in "Give the ball to him" from the 
dative "him". Trying to analyze both as simply "objective case" obscures 
their origins and makes it impossible to answer questions such as why 
English has two grammatical forms for the same semantic utterance.


Carol:
The term "objective case" makes perfect sense ... There's no need to 
distinguish accusative from dative when there's no distinction in form.

ME (CJ):
This is true only if by "form" you restrict yourself to morphology. 
English DOES retain the syntactic distinctions between the cases (see 
above and below).

(Yes, I realize that strictly defined "case" *is* morphology, but that 
doesn't mean case made no syntactical demands. Having morphologically 
marked "him", for example, does not utterly free me with respect to word 
order.)

CJ (earlier):
"thee" is (both) the accusative (and dative) form of the nominative "thou".

Carol:
It *functions* as both accusative and dative, but it's *called* objective

Me (now):
It has recently been relabeled by many (not all) grammarians as the 
"objective" case, but still a rose by any other name....

But modern grammarians who attempt to entirely subsume accusative and 
dative under a single category find themselves forced to reinvent the 
distinctions, e.g,. as in "direct" vs. "indirect" objects, which are 
simply renamed accusative and dative cases.

I love thee.
I give thee all my love.
I give all my love to thee.
I give all my love thee.

If every "thee" is simply "objective case", how does one distinguish 
when to use "to"? In the first sentence, it's disallowed; in the second, 
optional; in the third, required. Yet a modern grammarian would in every 
case save the first call "thee" an indirect object.

And then what does one do with the fourth sentence? Us moderns, lacking 
in understanding of the accusative and dative functions of "thee", are 
tempted to simply call it ungrammatical. Yet the syntax was quite common 
well into the early modern period. E.g."Have you the lion's part 
written? pray you, if it be, give it me, for I am slow of study." 
(Midsummer Night's Dream, Act I Scene 2), or "But I know, that even now, 
whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee." (John 11:22, KJV).

Carol:
Apparently, the film follows the book and the book reflects real usage 
among some but not all Quakers of the time.)

CJ:
I'm no Quaker expert, but my understanding is that the Quakers were 
attempting to follow the original informal understanding of "thee", and 
used it indiscriminately in both subject and object positions as a sort 
of forced egalitanarianism (an attempt to show we are all equal before 
God). But I think the Quaker usage must be held an aberration, or a 
dialectical idiosyncracy.

Carol:
My point is, English *lost* the accusative and dative cases, which
*merged* to become the objective case, when it lost the inflections
that distinguished those two cases. And that merger occurred at a time
when "thee" and "thou" were in use.

Me:
It lost the morphological distinctions; and yet grammarians continued to 
distinguish accusative and dative cases long after the morphological 
distinctives had disappeared (the subsumption of the two into a single 
"objective case" is a 20th century phenomenon still not universally 
followed). I think there are two possible explanations. Either they were 
simply hadn't gotten around to jettisoning older terminology, or they 
genuinely still found the cases useful, any lack of morphological 
distinction notwithstanding.

CJ




From drdara at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 10 22:19:00 2008
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: funny gif
Message-ID: <827762.60330.qm@web65501.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

you shouldn't be, let me check my settings for my acct, changed teh settings on my acct, try it again
sorry guys
danielle


----- Original Message ----
From: Mike <mcrudele78 at yahoo.com>
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:50:34 AM
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: funny gif


> danielle wrote:
>
> this is soo funny, you may have to watch it twice, sorry if it umm
> offends anyone

http://s169. photobucket. com/albums/ u211/ntz_ bltz4u/?
action=view?t= GeorgeBush. gif

Mike:
I'd like to view it at least once, to see if I'm offended, but this 
link won't work. I even pasted the whole URL, still I was sent to the 
home page and asked to sign in or join. I tried to paste it into the 
search function on the home page, that got me nowhere too.

Danielle, do you have to be a member to view this?

 


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 05:07:16 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:07:16 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <484EF969.7060102@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2nmi4+5k2v@eGroups.com>

CJ:
> It lost the morphological distinctions;

Carol responds:
Right.

CJ:
> and yet grammarians continued to distinguish accusative and dative
cases long after the morphological distinctives had disappeared (the
subsumption of the two into a single "objective case" is a 20th
century phenomenon still not universally followed). I think there are
two possible explanations. Either they were simply hadn't gotten
around to jettisoning older terminology, or they genuinely still found
the cases useful, any lack of morphological distinction notwithstanding.

Carol responds:
In the case of nominative for subjective, I think you're correct. My
ancient copy of "The Plain English Handbook" (copyright 1966!) give
the pronoun cases as nominative, objective, and possessive. I was
never, as a student of English in high school, college, or graduate
school, exposed to the terms genitive, dative, or accusative in
relation to English (except for Anglo-Saxon). They were, however, used
(along with ablative) for Latin.

I think possibly the problem, as you perceive it, is that so few 
students now take Latin (and virtually none take Anglo-Saxon below the
college level), so the term objective case has come to be used almost
universally, in the U.S. at least, for all types of objects in
English. My Plain English Handbook (intended, if you're not familiar
with it, as an aid to grammar and composition for high school
students) gives the following list of uses for the objective case
(unfortunately, I have to type them rather than cut and paste!):

1. Direct object of a verb.
2. Indirect object.
3. Object of a preposition.
4. Subject of an infinitive.
5. Complement of the infinitive *to be* having a subject [fortunately
for the bewildered student, there's a clear example of this use and
all the others!]
6. Object of a participle.
7. Object of a gerund.
8. Appositive.

"The Elements of Style" and "The Random House Handbook" by Frederick
Crews give the same three cases. The only book in my collection that
has "the subjective or nominative case," "the objective or accusative
case, and "the possessive or genitive case" is "The Writer's Guide and
Index to English," sixth edition. (Nothing about dative, though.)

Fowler's (my Bible when I'm editing British manuscripts) lists three
pronoun cases: subjective, objective, possessive. The list is preceded
by the following passage: 

"Before the Norman Conquest, English was characterized by its use of
case-endings. Nouns, pronouns, and adjectives had a range of forms
distinguishing the nominative singular from the accusative, genitive
and dative (sing. and pl.) <snip> The main modern English prepositions
existed, but for the most part had a reinforcing rather than a
semantic role. From the Conquest onward, the case-endings rapidly
disappeared except as signs of the possessive (sing. and pl.) of nouns
and of the plural of nouns. Adjectives gradually became invariable.
Pronouns alone were left with forms that distinguish case:

"subjective   objective   possessive" <snip lists of modern pronouns
illustrating each case>

"The main casualty of this process is that because nouns form such a
dominant part of the language, and because they do not change endings
in the old accusative and dative positions, English speakers have
partially lost an instinctive power to recognize case distinctions."

(A discussion of pronoun problems follows.)

Admirably clear and concise. IMO.  

And finally, "The Cambridge History of the English Language" has this
to say:

"Personal pronouns . . . have an objective form, which nouns no longer
have. This form is chiefly used when the pronoun is the object of a
clause <snip example> and when it is governed by a preposition <snip
example>. the term objective reflects this function, and replaces the
older term accusative., favoured by traditional grammar <snip cross
reference>, *which was more appropriate for Latin.* Similarly, when a
pronoun is the subject of a clause, it is said to be in the subjective
(formerly, nominative) case" (203).

Carol, resting her case (pun intended) 











From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun 11 06:35:42 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:35:42 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2nmi4+5k2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2nrnu+f34c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> CJ:
> > It lost the morphological distinctions;
> 
> Carol responds:
> Right.
> 
> CJ:
> > and yet grammarians continued to distinguish accusative and dative
> cases long after the morphological distinctives had disappeared (the
> subsumption of the two into a single "objective case" is a 20th
> century phenomenon still not universally followed). I think there are
> two possible explanations. Either they were simply hadn't gotten
> around to jettisoning older terminology, or they genuinely still found
> the cases useful, any lack of morphological distinction notwithstanding.
> 
> Carol responds:
> In the case of nominative for subjective, I think you're correct. My
> ancient copy of "The Plain English Handbook" (copyright 1966!) give
> the pronoun cases as nominative, objective, and possessive. I was
> never, as a student of English in high school, college, or graduate
> school, exposed to the terms genitive, dative, or accusative in
> relation to English (except for Anglo-Saxon). They were, however, used
> (along with ablative) for Latin.

Geoff:
But if they are studying German, they have to be familiarised with four 
cases (admittedly two less than Latin) and their usage.

This throws up a subsidiary problem which I met when teaching the 
beginners year in German when I had some slack in my timetable. 
Because language teaching in the UK has become creative writing 
intensive and far too tolerant in accepting poor grammar, I found 
myself in the situation of having to instruct pupils about matters 
such as subject, object and concepts such as adjectives and 
prepositions, theoretically not part of the lesson subject.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 10:26:32 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:26:32 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel
 / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2nmi4+5k2v@eGroups.com>
References: <g2nmi4+5k2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <484FA858.9010307@yahoo.com>

Skipping right to the point...

Carol:
Carol, resting her case (pun intended)

But the case you've rested is not the case under discussion. I don't 
think anyone has disputed that many, even most, modern authorities have 
subsumed the accusative and dative cases into the catch-all objective case.

This discussion started with Geoff's observation that "thee" is the 
accusative (and, I added, the dative) case form of "thou". You countered 
that since modern English has no accusative or dative "thee" must 
therefore be called "objective" case. To which I responded that "thee" 
is an archaism from a time when English DID have accusative and dative 
cases (and long before anyone had ever heard of the "objective case"), 
and thus "thee" can no more be called "objective case" than can OE 
"hine". Certainly grammarians of the time would "object".

 From there the discussion branched out into whether the subsumption by 
modern grammarians of the accusative and dative into the objective case 
is problematic and whether attempts to anachronistically recast the 
remaining accusative and dative features of English syntax in 
"objective" terms is helpful or merely obfuscatory. I provided examples 
of points at which I believe it obscures and confuses, rather than 
enlightens.

I'm still trying to determine the history of the modern objective case 
construct. So far, I can't find any reference predating the early 20th 
century, and the two 19th century authorities I have located (Coleridge 
and Clark) do discuss the accusative and dative cases.

Does anyone know when the "objective case" first appeared in the 
grammatical authorities?

CJ




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 10:51:16 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:51:16 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
Message-ID: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com>

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/6/11/new-harry-potter-prequel-
due-online-shortly/comments/2

Alla:

They now have the link to all cards that were written for that charity 
action including JKR's.

I loved the story, but I would enjoy any new information on Sirius :).

If you are having a hard time reading JKR's writing, go to the second 
page of comments in this thread and you can find that somebody typed it 
up and posted there.




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 14:45:17 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:45:17 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2oodt+qp8b@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> They now have the link to all cards that were written for that charity 
> action including JKR's.
> 
> I loved the story, but I would enjoy any new information on Sirius :).
> 
> If you are having a hard time reading JKR's writing, go to the second 
> page of comments in this thread and you can find that somebody typed 
> it up and posted there.

Kemper now:
Though I like James and Sirius even less after reading it, I'm glad
that the story (as well as the others) were written for the benefit of
others.

Way to go, Jo, Maggie, Nicky, Neil and the others!

Kemper






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 15:44:55 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:44:55 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2oodt+qp8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ortn+rpuq@eGroups.com>

> Kemper now:
> Though I like James and Sirius even less after reading it, I'm glad
> that the story (as well as the others) were written for the benefit of
> others.
> 
> Way to go, Jo, Maggie, Nicky, Neil and the others!
> 
> Kemper
>


Alla:

Heee, I know that you did not like them much, but out of curiosity may 
I ask what caused you to like them less after this story?

Looked like they were fighting DE to me as opposed to random law 
breaking as it looked to muggle policemen, no?

and yes, good deal for charity, agree.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 11 17:56:07 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:56:07 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2ortn+rpuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p3jn+ehpb@eGroups.com>

 
> Alla:
> 
> Heee, I know that you did not like them much, but out of curiosity 
may 
> I ask what caused you to like them less after this story?
> 
> Looked like they were fighting DE to me as opposed to random law 
> breaking as it looked to muggle policemen, no?
> 
> and yes, good deal for charity, agree.


Potioncat:
I thought they were teenagers being bad, so to speak. Then I 
wondered  if Severus Snape was one of the three who crashed into the 
car. 'Then' I thought it would explain why Professor Snape had been 
so angry about the flying car many years later!

When I first heard about this charity event, it reminded me of a fan-
fiction challenge. "Write an 800 word story that takes place prior 
the HP books." It actually reads like fan-fiction. But, it is what it 
is, a quick little story that JKR wrote for the fun of it. I like the 
fact that we only get the middle...we don't know anything about what 
went before or how it will be resolved in the end, but we know they 
were in some sort of conflict. 

Sort of like another challenge: here's the middle, now write the 
beginning and end.

 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 18:15:29 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:15:29 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2p3jn+ehpb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p4o1+7bhl@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:
> I thought they were teenagers being bad, so to speak. Then I 
> wondered  if Severus Snape was one of the three who crashed into the 
> car. 'Then' I thought it would explain why Professor Snape had been 
> so angry about the flying car many years later!
><SNIP>


Alla:

Heee, seriously though did you think that it were DE or not? Three men, 
I mean? Because since it was the middle of the war, I had no doubt in 
my mind. But I guess it is opened to interpretation.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 11 18:28:00 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:28:00 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2p4o1+7bhl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p5fg+ajsv@eGroups.com>

 
> Alla:
> 
> Heee, seriously though did you think that it were DE or not? Three 
men, 
> I mean? Because since it was the middle of the war, I had no doubt in 
> my mind. But I guess it is opened to interpretation.


Potioncat:
Well, it really did cross my mind to wonder who the three were and if 
Snape was one. But I had the feeling James and Sirius were teens on a 
lark...not Order members on a mission. So I wonder if the three were 
from a MoM agency that watches out for misuse of magic around Muggles. 

I wish I'd made a copy of the type-written version. Were the three on 
broomsticks referred to as men or kids?





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 18:41:32 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:41:32 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2p5fg+ajsv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p68s+c5g5@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:
> Well, it really did cross my mind to wonder who the three were and if 
> Snape was one. But I had the feeling James and Sirius were teens on a 
> lark...not Order members on a mission. So I wonder if the three were 
> from a MoM agency that watches out for misuse of magic around 
Muggles. 
> 
> I wish I'd made a copy of the type-written version. Were the three on 
> broomsticks referred to as men or kids?
>


Alla:

Go to the second page of the comments on Leaky, somebody typed it there.

They were referred  to as men ( three on Broomsticks I mean), and the 
fact that James and Sirius wore T-shirts with golden bird and were in 
late teens made me think that they already joined the order.

I thought they were on some sort of mission ( some sort of fight with 
DE) but were doing it their style of course.

I cheered them soooo much :)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Wed Jun 11 19:28:52 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:28:52 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2ortn+rpuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2p91k+fj80@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> Heee, I know that you did not like them much, but out of curiosity 
may 
> I ask what caused you to like them less after this story?
> 
> Looked like they were fighting DE to me as opposed to random law 
> breaking as it looked to muggle policemen, no?
> 
> and yes, good deal for charity, agree.

Magpie:
I do love James and Sirius and wow, this story made me feel sorry for 
Sirius again. He just adored James, and he must have remembered this 
time in his life as heaven. 

Also, note how James and Sirius are out doing things as members of 
the Order (leaving aside how silly tee-shirts probably really are 
when you think about it). 

-m






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 21:00:57 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:00:57 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2p91k+fj80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2pee9+4rur@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> I do love James and Sirius and wow, this story made me feel sorry for 
> Sirius again. He just adored James, and he must have remembered this 
> time in his life as heaven. 

Alla:

Yes.
 
Magpie:
> Also, note how James and Sirius are out doing things as members of 
> the Order (leaving aside how silly tee-shirts probably really are 
> when you think about it). 

Alla:

Oh yeah, tee-shirts are silly, but I think that she wanted to make sure 
that we know that they are members of the order already and since she 
was limited to 800 words she decided that golden bird would be the best 
sign for that or something.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 11 21:20:43 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:20:43 -0000
Subject: The War of the Roses Discussion
Message-ID: <g2pfjb+esfh@eGroups.com>

It seems historical fiction is pretty popular with this group. Maybe 
it's because the War of the Roses reads just like HP. Whether it's 
Slytherins and Gryffindors or Yorks and Lancasters, there's lots of 
treachery and bloodshed and sometimes a suggestion of witchcraft. 

I was thinking about starting a discussion group for "The Sunne in 
Splendour." Contact me off list if you're interested in joining.


Potioncat
Kathy





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 21:52:06 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:52:06 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2phe6+aoh8@eGroups.com>

--- "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/6/11/new-harry-potter-prequel-due-online-shortly/comments/2
> 
> Alla:
> 
> They now have the link to all cards that were written for that
> charity action including JKR's.
> 
> I loved the story, but I would enjoy any new information on 
> Sirius :).
> 
> If you are having a hard time reading JKR's writing, go to 
> the second page of comments in this thread and you can find 
> that somebody typed it up and posted there.
>

bboyminn:

Loved the story, but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out
why they were carrying chicken legs in their back pockets. Though,
admittedly, it eventually dawned on me.

Curious, would it be legal to 'type it up and post it here'?

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 22:33:29 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:33:29 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2pjrp+3mbg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/6/11/new-harry-potter-prequel-
> due-online-shortly/comments/2
> 
> Alla:
> 
> They now have the link to all cards that were written for that
charity action including JKR's.
> 
> I loved the story, but I would enjoy any new information on Sirius :).
> 
> If you are having a hard time reading JKR's writing, go to the
second page of comments in this thread and you can find that somebody
typed it up and posted there.
>
Carol responds:

I confess myself--disappointed.

Carol, thanking Alla for the link but considering the "story" barely
worth reading




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 11 23:04:17 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:04:17 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2phe6+aoh8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2pllh+3tm4@eGroups.com>

bboyminn:
> 
> Loved the story, but for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why
they were carrying chicken legs in their back pockets. Though,
admittedly, it eventually dawned on me.
> 
> Curious, would it be legal to 'type it up and post it here'?
> 
Carol:
You're joking about the chicken legs, right? I always thought that
Muggles would think that wands resembled conductor's batons, but
drumsticks (literal drumsticks, not chicken legs) would suit teenage
boys who appear to be wearing T-shirts advertising a rock group.

But Wilberforce, Bathsheba, and Elvendork as the names of the three
men they were chasing? (I think Alla must be right that they're DEs,
but that's not clear from the story, and they're nobody we've ever
heard of. Of course, Snape wouldn't be involved since Sirius never
knew that he'd been a DE, but it could at least be, say, Yaxley,
Travers, and Carrow.)

As for being legal to copy the story here, I seriously doubt it since
you'd be copying the entire story without permission. It's safest just
to link to the Waterstone's site. Granted, the auction is already over
with, but I wouldn't consider the story to be in the public domain
until JKR herself says it is. (If the typed version disappears from
the comments section of the Leaky site, we'll know that she doesn't
approve unauthorized copying!)

Anyway, I think it's sad that the Marauders were already reduced to
Sirius and James together (no wonder "Wormy" felt resentful enough to
betray them and there was enough friction or coldness between Remus
and Sirius four years later for them to suspect each other of being
the traitor). And I didn't like their smart-alec attitude or their
recklessness, either. But that's Sirius and James for you. It didn't
help me to know them or like them any better. Just more of the same
cocky, arrogant recklessness that we saw in SWM.

Carol, who thinks that if this story is a taste of the prequel JKR
isn't writing, it might as well remain unwritten




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 01:23:09 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:23:09 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <484FA858.9010307@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2ptpt+buv6@eGroups.com>

Lee wrote:
> But the case you've rested is not the case under discussion. I don't
think anyone has disputed that many, even most, modern authorities
have subsumed the accusative and dative cases into the catch-all
objective case.

Carol responds:
Odd. that's not the impression I received from your posts and Geoff's,
or from your comment below (which I'll answer in a moment) about when
the concept of objective case for the merged dative and accusative
case emerged.
 
CJ:
> This discussion started with Geoff's observation that "thee" is the
accusative (and, I added, the dative) case form of "thou". You
countered that since modern English has no accusative or dative "thee"
must therefore be called "objective" case. To which I responded that
"thee" is an archaism from a time when English DID have accusative and
dative cases (and long before anyone had ever heard of the "objective
case"), and thus "thee" can no more be called "objective case" than
can OE "hine". Certainly grammarians of the time would "object".

Carol responds:
But "thou" and "thee" are not Old English pronouns, nor do they date
to a time when English distinguished between the accusative and the
dative through inflected endings. They're Middle English pronouns
preserved to some extent in Early Modern English, and, as I've said
before, the dative and accusative inflections *had already
disappeared* in Middle English. 

Can you show me a distinct dative form of "thee"? Even in Old English,
the accusative/dative distinction had disappeared in the first- and
second-person pronouns, the second-person pronouns being only "thu,"
"the," and "thin" (I can't do a thorn on this computer, so I'm
substituting "th"), which became, in ME and Early Modern English,
"thou," "thee," "thy/thine"--exactly the same variants we find for the
modern second-person singular pronoun "you." 

CJ: 
>  From there the discussion branched out into whether the subsumption
by modern grammarians of the accusative and dative into the objective
case is problematic and whether attempts to anachronistically recast
the remaining accusative and dative features of English syntax in 
"objective" terms is helpful or merely obfuscatory. I provided
examples of points at which I believe it obscures and confuses, rather
than enlightens.

Carol responds:
Whether it helps or hurts is rather beside the point as it's a done
deal, like the change from presecriptive to descriptive in
dictionaries. Having taught English, however, I assure you it's easier
to teach students with little or not exposure to highly inflected
languages the concept of an objective pronoun (as applied to direct
object, indirect object, and objects of prepositions, etc.) than the
concepts of dative and accusative, which are extinct in English and
have not been distinguished in most pronouns for a thousand years.

You're entitled to think that it obscures and confuses rather than
enlightens, but, having taught college English (and, for one year,
high school English), I have a feeling that high school students
(already insufficiently exposed to grammar, as Geoff pointed out)
would find the terminology confusing. At least "objective" actually
ties in with the uses to which the case is put.

CJ: 
> I'm still trying to determine the history of the modern objective
case construct. So far, I can't find any reference predating the early
20th century, and the two 19th century authorities I have located
(Coleridge and Clark) do discuss the accusative and dative cases.

> Does anyone know when the "objective case" first appeared in the 
grammatical authorities?

Carol:
The only Coleridge I'm familiar with is Samuel Taylor Coleridge, so
I'm not familiar with Coleridge and Clark. I did, however, find an
1878 text, "English Grammar, including the Principles of Grammatical
Analysis," by one C. P. Mason, B.A., F.C.P., Fellow of University
College, London, which states:

"Many older writers make a grievous mistake in trying to dress out
English constructions in a Latin garb, being misled by the notion that
Latin grammar is a sort of universal test and touchstone of all
grammatical questions" (vii, n.).

Later, (after a reminder that English is a Germanic and not a Romance
language and that modern English is an analytical as opposed to an
"inflectional" language), Mason defines "case" as "the form in which a
noun or pronoun is used, in order to show the relationship in which it
stands to some other word in the sentence" and adds:

"In English there are now* three cases, the Nominative Case, the
Possessive Case, and the objective Case" (24).

The * leads to a note stating, "English was anciently a much more
inflected language than it is now. When it was in its Anglo-Saxon
stage, nouns and pronouns had five cases, answering to the Nominative,
Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Ablative of Latin <snip>. In modern
English (as in French), the use of case-endings has to a great extent
been replaced by the use of prepositions. <snip> It will easily be
seen how, in the course of time, the case-ending in the word that
followed a preposition would become superfluous, when prepositions
were uniformly followed by the same cases. <snip> But though in modern
English and French a preposition followed by a noun is the
*substitute* for a case it is wrong to call that combination itself a
*case* <snip> (24 n., emphais in original).

Of course, that paragraph relates to the merging of the ablative and
accusative cases with regard to objects of prepositions, but it could
also relate to the dative to the extent that it is represented in
English by "to," stated or implied.

With regard to the objective case, Mason says, "the objective case is
that form in which a noun or pronoun is used when it stands for the
object of the action spoken of in some verb, or when it comes after a
prepostion. <snip> The objective case is often used, like the Latin
dative, to indicate the *indirect object* <snip definition and
examples> (310>

More to the point, the section on case in modern English is followed
by a note beginning, "The endeavor to distinguish a *dative* and an
*accusative* case in modern English is at variance with the genius
[spirit] and history of the language. We see from the pronouns (see
Appendix A) that the form which maintained its ground was the dative,
which first ousted the ablative and usurped its functions, and then
did the same with the accusative. It is unphilosophical to
re-introduce distinctions which a language has ceased to recognise.
,snip> As there is but one *form* <snip examples> to denote both the
direct and the indirect object, not only is nothing gained, but an
important piece of linguistic history is obscured by having two names
for it. It is much better to use the common name *objective* <snip> 
(31 n., emphasis in original).

I've probably quoted too extensively and bored the pants off anyone
not interested in grammar, but I wanted to make it clear that, first,
the distinction between dative and accusative ceased to exist when Old
English became Middle English, and therefore has no bearing on the
Middle English/Early Modern English pronoun "thee/thou" (which never
had a different form for accusative and dative) and that, at least by
1876 and probably earlier, arguments for abandoning Latin terminology
for English grammar were being made on the grounds that the
inflections had been dropped and the distinction in form lost for all
but three cases (nominative or subjective, objective, and possessive)
in personal pronouns and all but two (nominative and possessive) in
nouns (the nominative or subjective and the objective forms being the
same).   
 
I lost the file and can't look up Appendix A, but I've probably bored
everyone sufficiently, anyway.

Carol, still maintaining that dative and accusative were already
merged in Middle English and are no more applicable to "thee" than to
to the modern "you" (and that "objective case" nicely encapsulates the
primary functions of pronouns used as direct objects, indirect
objects, and objects of prepositions, all serving an objective
function with no difference in form)




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 03:29:28 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:29:28 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2ortn+rpuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2q56o+o9vj@eGroups.com>

> > Kemper earlier:
> > Though I like James and Sirius even less after reading it...

> Alla:
> Heee, I know that you did not like them much, but out of curiosity may 
> I ask what caused you to like them less after this story?

Kemper now:
I didn't appreciate their interactions with the Muggles... kind of
dickish, but I suppose that keeps them in character as she wrote them
so I really shouldn't complain. :)

On a similar note:  I was thrown out of the story when the police
listed no helmets as a violation.  Were their helmet laws in the UK
circa 1977?

I wonder how many of the authors wrote a rough draft before writing on
the card.  I hope none of them did.


> Looked like they were fighting DE to me as opposed to random law 
> breaking as it looked to muggle policemen, no?

Kemper now:
That was my impression as well.  However, they didn't seem to feel as
though the police were in that much peril.

Kemper





From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 07:25:09 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:25:09 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2q56o+o9vj@eGroups.com>
References: <g2q56o+o9vj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4850CF55.7080202@yahoo.com>

Alla:
what caused you to like them less after this story?

Kemper:
I didn't appreciate their interactions with the Muggles... kind of dickish

CJ:
Cocky and arrogant leap to mind - cockier and arroganter than a couple 
of teenagers ought to have been in that situation. I'm sure Moody 
would've given them a good dressing-down. Yeah, I know -- we're supposed 
to find the cockiness endearing.

But I was struck by the t-shirts. Members of a super-secret 
crime-fighting organization and they garumph around advertising it? 
That's two dressings-down Moody owes them.

Though the story says "late teens", James must be at least eighteen at 
this point (he was twenty one when he died, and how long did VWI last?) 
It wouldn't appear that James had outgrown the arrogance that Lily had 
accused him of earlier, leaving one to wonder a) how he ever became head 
boy, b) why Lily ever fell in love with him, and c) whether he remained 
a dick his entire life. As others have pointed out, we keep waiting for 
James to display *some* redeeming quality, but here again, we don't get it.

Kemper:
However, they didn't seem to feel as though the police were in that much 
peril.

CJ:
Feel? Or care?

CJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun 12 13:46:10 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:46:10 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2ptpt+buv6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2r9b2+il0o@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> Later, (after a reminder that English is a Germanic and not a Romance
> language and that modern English is an analytical as opposed to an
> "inflectional" language), Mason defines "case" as "the form in which a
> noun or pronoun is used, in order to show the relationship in which it
> stands to some other word in the sentence" and adds:

Geoff:
To be quite frank, I do not agree with Mason about English. One of the 
things which makes English one of the most expressive languages in 
the world is the fact it is a mongrel.

I agree that a large part of English derives from its Anglo-Saxon 
Germanic roots but the fact remains that French had a dominating 
effect on English linguistic development following the Norman 
Conquest and thus there is a large part of our heritage stemming
from the Romance side.

I taught for many years alongside a colleague whose speciality was 
English and who used to sum up the post-1066 development in the 
following humorous and succinct way:
"When the Normans conquered England, French became the official 
language of the Court. Anglo-Saxon was thrown to the peasants to 
do with as they would and what they did with it was nobody's business!"

This is also echoed in Bill Bryson's excellent book "Mother Tongue".
Just as an aside, Tolkien intensely hated the French influence on English.

Carol:  
> More to the point, the section on case in modern English is followed
> by a note beginning, "The endeavor to distinguish a *dative* and an
> *accusative* case in modern English is at variance with the genius
> [spirit] and history of the language.... 

> It is unphilosophical to re-introduce distinctions which a language 
> has ceased to recognise....

> As there is but one *form* to denote both the direct and the indirect 
> object, not only is nothing gained, but an important piece of linguistic 
> history is obscured by having two names for it. It is much better to 
> use the common name *objective* 

Geoff:
But there is a dative because any English speaker can recognise the 
usage without the use of a pronoun.


Carol, still maintaining that dative and accusative were already
> merged in Middle English and are no more applicable to "thee" than to
> to the modern "you" (and that "objective case" nicely encapsulates the
> primary functions of pronouns used as direct objects, indirect
> objects, and objects of prepositions, all serving an objective
> function with no difference in form)

Geoff:
The trouble, as I've already hinted, about the title "objective case" is 
that for those of us, like myself,  who have had contact with Latin 
and German is that I think in terms of these names. The  title "objective 
case" means nothing linguistically to me. My first reaction is that we 
are in the subjective/objective area - "What am I supposed to be 
thinking about objectively here?" OK, so I've missed the point  but I 
stay with the comfort zone of the terminology I was taught.

I have no reason to object to your view expressed in the last paragraph; 
it is your interpretation. But, if I may go back to quotations from 
Wikipedia a couple of days ago, when I pointed out that the statement 
was that "Most modern English grammarians..." The use of the phrase
 "objective case" is not prescriptive and it would appear that CJ and I 
are both of the opinion that dative and accusative can retain a place 
in the descriptive process.










From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Thu Jun 12 15:28:27 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_Br=E4utigam?=)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:28:27 +0200
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
References: <g2r9b2+il0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c8cca0$f70da780$15b2a8c0@miles>

> Carol:
>> Later, (after a reminder that English is a Germanic and not a Romance
>> language and that modern English is an analytical as opposed to an
>> "inflectional" language), Mason defines "case" as "the form in which
>> a noun or pronoun is used, in order to show the relationship in
>> which it stands to some other word in the sentence" and adds:
>
> Geoff:
> To be quite frank, I do not agree with Mason about English. One of the
> things which makes English one of the most expressive languages in
> the world is the fact it is a mongrel.
>
> I agree that a large part of English derives from its Anglo-Saxon
> Germanic roots but the fact remains that French had a dominating
> effect on English linguistic development following the Norman
> Conquest and thus there is a large part of our heritage stemming
> from the Romance side.

Miles:
But that does not change English being a "Germanic" language in structure. 
What has changed most is the lexicon of English - most words have French or 
Latin origin. If you strip an English text off its words and replace them by 
the respective German expressions, you'll have a text that sounds a bit 
funny for German speakers, but it will be perfectly comprehensible. As far 
as I understand linguistic classification of languages, that structure is 
the crucial point.

In the course of centuries English did not only replace big parts of the 
Anglo-Saxon or Germanic lexicon (funnily keeping some that German lost - 
"window" for example), the grammatic structure was simplified and "lost" 
several distinctions either the Germanic roots, as well as French and Latin 
had. This might have to do with English not being a "civilised" language for 
a long time, but this is just an amateur's guess.

I hope it doesn't sound rude, but besides the political reasons for English 
being lingua franca for the northern hemisphere (which seems to be most 
important in my opinion), it's popular because it's easy. Don't get me 
wrong: To speak *good* English is challenging. But to learn enough English 
to master everyday conversation and to be understood in English speaking 
countries is not too difficult, if you don't ask for a good accent ;). 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 12 17:37:23 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:37:23 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <4850CF55.7080202@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2rmsj+di42@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla:
> what caused you to like them less after this story?
> 

> CJ:
> 
> But I was struck by the t-shirts. Members of a super-secret 
> crime-fighting organization and they garumph around advertising it? 
> That's two dressings-down Moody owes them.

Pippin:
The Order had its black ops and black operatives, but not all its 
operations were secret, any more than everything the CIA does is secret. 

Nor does it ever seem to have been a secret that James and Sirius were 
Order members, certainly not after James had defied Voldemort three times 
(I wonder if this was one of them.)   The tee shirts are a bit silly and 
flamboyant, but then so are the DE masks and robes, not to mention 
wizard fashions in general

CJ:
 As others have pointed out, we keep waiting for 
 James to display *some* redeeming quality, but here again, we don't get it.

Pippin:
Is there some confusion about what redemption is? It doesn't mean to 
achieve or be worthy of blessedness. Its literal meaning is to be bought 
out of  slavery. That could be literal slavery,  or it could be spiritual 
slavery to a false ideal or a to a false concept of oneself. 

Generally one doesn't earn redemption, one accepts it. I would say 
that James accepted redemption in  becoming an Order member and 
helping to redeem others from bondage to Voldemort.

Redemption need not be complete. You can be redeemed from one 
kind of slavery and yet remain in another, which is the usual situation 
in the Potter books. James had to remain arrogant to some degree, 
since his arrogance would kill him in the end ("too arrogant to 
believe he was mistaken in Black.") 


Pippin




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 12 17:48:59 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:48:59 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rmsj+di42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rnib+d5fd@eGroups.com>

> CJ:
>  As others have pointed out, we keep waiting for 
>  James to display *some* redeeming quality, but here again, we 
don't get it.
> 
> Pippin:
> Is there some confusion about what redemption is? It doesn't mean 
to 
> achieve or be worthy of blessedness. Its literal meaning is to be 
bought 
> out of  slavery. That could be literal slavery,  or it could be 
spiritual 
> slavery to a false ideal or a to a false concept of oneself. 
> 
> Generally one doesn't earn redemption, one accepts it. I would say 
> that James accepted redemption in  becoming an Order member and 
> helping to redeem others from bondage to Voldemort.

Magpie:
Given how James starts out, that's not a change. James was always the 
way he was while also hating Dark Magic. Either he didn't really need 
to be redeemed or he wasn't, imo, because he was always the same, 
personality-wise. 

-m (Who didn't think James needed to be redeemed particularly, which 
is lucky for him because iho the Potterverse is the Land that 
Redemption Forgot.)




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 12 17:55:52 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:55:52 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rnib+d5fd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rnv8+l558@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> Given how James starts out, that's not a change. James was always the 
> way he was while also hating Dark Magic. Either he didn't really need 
> to be redeemed or he wasn't, imo, because he was always the same, 
> personality-wise. 
> 
> -m (Who didn't think James needed to be redeemed particularly, which 
> is lucky for him because iho the Potterverse is the Land that 
> Redemption Forgot.)

Magpie:
Adding--that if you are using just the "bought out of slavery" 
definition some characters could certainly be said to have done that, 
but that doesn't make it a redemption story as that's usually 
described. They're more redeemed like Mowgli in the Jungle Books who's 
bought by a bull so he can live--he's redeemed by the bull, but it's 
not a redemption story.

-m 




From heidi8 at gmail.com  Thu Jun 12 18:18:46 2008
From: heidi8 at gmail.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:18:46 -0400
Subject: Mary GrandPre Art at Portus 2008
Message-ID: <5913e6f80806121118n5d9af98dy93eb7f852ed48086@mail.gmail.com>

We are thrilled to announce an addition to Portus 2008's Gallery programming.


THE MAGIC OF VISUAL STORYTELLING:  OFFICIAL ART OF HARRY POTTER

Leslie Combemale, owner of ArtInsights Animation and Film Art Gallery
hosts a discussion about the positive impact of art on the success of
the  arry Potter book series and franchise worldwide.  The cover art
by Mary  GrandPre, whom she has represented in an exclusive release of
the book cover limited editions, as well as other artists involved
with the  representation of the Harry Potter story line and
characters.   She will discuss the art of GrandPre, the influence of
design elements from the history of art for each cover, how Mary and
JK Rowling worked together, the creative process, and the development
of cover and image design for the Harry Potter series.  The art of
Mary GrandPre will be on display as part of these discussions.


Leslie Combemale, owner of ArtInsights Animation and Film Art Gallery,
 has been representing animation, film and illustrative art since she
was 21, (a goodly while...) and in her art gallery in Reston, Virginia
for 14 years.  She recently had a month long worldwide first release
of the new limited editions by Mary GrandPre of the covers from Harry
Potter, and represented her original illustrations exclusively, as
well as the work of John Alvin, Fred Bode, Jim Salvati and other
artists who were chosen by JK Rowling to develop the visual landscape
of the HP world.

This program will take place in the Portus Gallery from 10:30 until
11:30 AM on Friday, July 11, and Ms Combemale will also host a Q&A
about Mary GrandPre's art that afternoon. Admission to this session is
included with all full-event passes to Portus, as well as Friday-only
passes. You can purchase either type of registration via the Portus
site at http://www.portus2008.org/registration.htm or click that url
to add additional options, such as a tea or dessert gathering, to your
registration.


- Heidi for Portus 2008



From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 18:25:24 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:25:24 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rpmk+7clm@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/6/11/new-harry-potter-prequel-
> due-online-shortly/comments/2


lizzyben:

Thanks. I quite enjoyed this little story - James & Sirius in their 
glory, a fight with Death Eaters, and humor that's just over the line 
to meanness. It's classic JKR. Unlike other people, I don't really have 
a huge problem with the Maruaders & it was fun to catch a glimpse of 
their younger years.


lizzyben




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Jun 12 18:25:28 2008
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:25:28 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rnv8+l558@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rpmo+o7l8@eGroups.com>


> > Magpie:
> > Given how James starts out, that's not a change. James was always
the  way he was while also hating Dark Magic. Either he didn't really
need  to be redeemed or he wasn't, imo, because he was always the
same,  personality-wise. 
> > 
> > -m (Who didn't think James needed to be redeemed particularly,
which  is lucky for him because iho the Potterverse is the Land that 
> > Redemption Forgot.)
> 
> Magpie:
> Adding--that if you are using just the "bought out of slavery" 
> definition some characters could certainly be said to have done
that,  but that doesn't make it a redemption story as that's usually 
> described. They're more redeemed like Mowgli in the Jungle Books
who's  bought by a bull so he can live--he's redeemed by the bull, but
it's  not a redemption story.
> 

Pippin:

By that definition, the biblical Exodus is not a redemption story
either. And if it's not, what is? The Children of Israel of course
despite their redemption remained famously divided and stiff-necked. 
But they agreed to take direction from God (which they didn't always
follow.) 

James remained arrogant, but agreed to take direction from Dumbledore
as an Order member (which he didn't always follow.) And this enabled
him to fight dark magic effectively enough that Voldemort considered
him one who had defied him three times.  Something James was not doing
while he was out cavorting with a werewolf and picking on young Snape.


Pippin





From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 18:30:49 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:30:49 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rpmo+o7l8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rq0p+mjni@eGroups.com>


> Pippin:

> James remained arrogant, but agreed to take direction from Dumbledore
> as an Order member (which he didn't always follow.) And this enabled
> him to fight dark magic effectively enough that Voldemort considered
> him one who had defied him three times.  Something James was not doing
> while he was out cavorting with a werewolf and picking on young Snape.
> 
> 
> Pippin
>

lizzyben:

Can't he be both? An arrogant jerk who picks on nerds & is also devoted 
to the Order, his friends, Lily & fighting against LV? The James I read 
is totally consistent from his first memory on the Hogwarts train, 
through SWM, through this little story. He doesn't change in either his 
flaws or his good points. I don't really understand why James needs to 
be "redeemed": he is what he is. It's just not what Harry (or the 
reader) originally percieved him to be. 


lizzyben




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Thu Jun 12 18:34:03 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:34:03 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rpmo+o7l8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2rq6r+6l0u@eGroups.com>

> Pippin:
> 
> By that definition, the biblical Exodus is not a redemption story
> either. And if it's not, what is? The Children of Israel of course
> despite their redemption remained famously divided and stiff-
necked. 
> But they agreed to take direction from God (which they didn't always
> follow.) 

Magpie:
I don't consider it a redemption story, no. Not the way I usually use 
the term, where an individual turns over a new leaf. They're being 
freed from literal slavery that was imposed on them. I'm referring to 
what I think people usually refer to as redemption stories, 
especially in kid's lit. It's an escape from slavery story.

Pippin:
> 
> James remained arrogant, but agreed to take direction from 
Dumbledore
> as an Order member (which he didn't always follow.) And this enabled
> him to fight dark magic effectively enough that Voldemort considered
> him one who had defied him three times.  Something James was not 
doing
> while he was out cavorting with a werewolf and picking on young 
Snape.

Magpie:
We don't know anything about James as an Order member except what we 
have in the books, which is very little. He would always have taken 
direction from Dumbledore and not always follow them. There's no 
story of much of a change in James in the books, and nothing added to 
such a change in this story. If anything, this snippet reinforces the 
same guy we saw the first time we actually got to see him. High-
spirited, likes to fight bad-guys, cheeky, arrogant, loves teasing 
people with Sirius. He can be an ass, but he's on Dumbledore's side.

-m




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 19:52:29 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:52:29 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rmsj+di42@eGroups.com>
References: <g2rmsj+di42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48517E7D.5050401@yahoo.com>

CJ:
As others have pointed out, we keep waiting for James to display
*some* redeeming quality, but here again, we don't get it.

Pippin:
Is there some confusion about what redemption is? It doesn't mean
to achieve or be worthy of blessedness. Its literal meaning is to
be bought out of slavery.

CJ (Now):
But I wasn't intending to re-open the whole discussion of redemption in 
the Potterverse. I didn't say "redemption", but "redeeming quality", and 
I intended it in the modern colloquial sense -- a quality that makes one 
of worth.

Pippin:
Generally one doesn't earn redemption, one accepts it.

True. But we also have a tendency to expect a resulting change in the 
redeemed individual. I can't speak to Protestant thought on this point, 
but Catholic (my background) theology clearly distinguishes between 
redemption and salvation. Redemption is the initial step, but there is 
no salvation without conversion.

There is no evidence of conversion in James's story. He has lost none of 
the traits which had earned him Lily's scorn years earlier, leaving me 
still puzzled as to why she fell in love with him. Or how he managed to 
become Head Boy. Or, for that matter, why he was tolerated in the Order. 
The kind of arrogance and conceit that were James's trademarks generally 
make one a danger not only to oneself but to those around him, and 
indeed, as you pointed out, James's arrogance ultimately does get not 
only him but also Lily killed. Would have killed Harry, too, except for 
lucky chance.

The more we learn about James, the more I'm of the opinion the only 
things distinguishing him from teenage Snape were better social skills 
and a hot bath. James may have eschewed Dark Magic, but as he seems to 
have found plenty of questionable uses for the good stuff I'm not sure 
that's more than a technicality.

CJ




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 19:58:30 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:58:30 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <4850CF55.7080202@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2rv56+o7b6@eGroups.com>

CJ:
Cocky and arrogant leap to mind - cockier and arroganter than a couple
of teenagers ought to have been in that situation. I'm sure Moody
would've given them a good dressing-down. Yeah, I know -- we're 
supposed
to find the cockiness endearing.

But I was struck by the t-shirts. Members of a super-secret
crime-fighting organization and they garumph around advertising it?
That's two dressings-down Moody owes them.

Alla:

Unless T-shirts were saying ? there is an Order of Phoenix 
organization and we are members of it, I do not see how they were 
advertising anything. Silliness is one thing and I think large part 
of it JKR wanting to let us know that they were members, but I  do 
not see how it is anything more than that. I mean, muggle police 
certainly did not decide that they are members of anything and I am 
not sure how DE could.

CJ:
Though the story says "late teens", James must be at least eighteen at
this point (he was twenty one when he died, and how long did VWI 
last?)
It wouldn't appear that James had outgrown the arrogance that Lily had
accused him of earlier, leaving one to wonder a) how he ever became 
head
boy, b) why Lily ever fell in love with him, and c) whether he 
remained
a dick his entire life. As others have pointed out, we keep waiting 
for
James to display *some* redeeming quality, but here again, we don't 
get it.

Alla:

Question, I always thought that you can say that person is in his 
late teens until person is twenty, is it not correct?  I am pretty 
sure that JKR said  that story is taking place roughly three years 
before Harry was born, so my guess would be seventeen or eighteen.

I am also not sure what is wrong with arrogance if one fighting enemy 
with it. I mean, I do not think that if it was supposed to be some 
sort of spy mission arrogance will be very appropriate, but how they 
behave here seems quite appropriate to me anyways.


Kemper:
However, they didn't seem to feel as though the police were in that 
much
peril.

CJ:
Feel? Or care?

Alla:

I do not quite get it. What peril was police in? From DE you mean? 
Sure they were and I speculate that James and Sirius were thinking 
that they are also protecting Muggle police from the DE. They were 
doing it in cocky arrogant way, but eh, they were still protecting 
muggles from terrorists, were they not?

I believe muggle police would have been and should have been really 
really grateful to James and Sirius had they any clue what was really 
happening.

JMO,

Alla





From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Thu Jun 12 21:29:49 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (Miles)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:29:49 +0200
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
Message-ID: <007001c8ccd3$734b9c80$464da8c0@miles>

> Carol:
>> Later, (after a reminder that English is a Germanic and not a Romance
>> language and that modern English is an analytical as opposed to an
>> "inflectional" language), Mason defines "case" as "the form in which
>> a noun or pronoun is used, in order to show the relationship in
>> which it stands to some other word in the sentence" and adds:
>
> Geoff:
> To be quite frank, I do not agree with Mason about English. One of the
> things which makes English one of the most expressive languages in
> the world is the fact it is a mongrel.
>
> I agree that a large part of English derives from its Anglo-Saxon
> Germanic roots but the fact remains that French had a dominating
> effect on English linguistic development following the Norman
> Conquest and thus there is a large part of our heritage stemming
> from the Romance side.

Miles:
But that does not change English being a "Germanic" language in structure.
What has changed most is the lexicon of English - most words have French or
Latin origin. If you strip an English text off its words and replace them by
the respective German expressions, you'll have a text that sounds a bit
funny for German speakers, but it will be perfectly comprehensible. As far
as I understand linguistic classification of languages, that structure is
the crucial point.

In the course of centuries English did not only replace big parts of the
Anglo-Saxon or Germanic lexicon (funnily keeping some that German lost -
"window" for example), the grammatic structure was simplified and "lost"
several distinctions either the Germanic roots, as well as French and Latin
had. This might have to do with English not being a "civilised" language for
a long time, but this is just an amateur's guess.

I hope it doesn't sound rude, but besides the political reasons for English
being lingua franca for the northern hemisphere (which seems to be most
important in my opinion), it's popular because it's easy. Don't get me
wrong: To speak good English is challenging. But to learn enough English
to master everyday conversation and to be understood in English speaking
countries is not too difficult, if you don't ask for a good accent ;). 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun 12 22:24:29 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:24:29 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <007001c8ccd3$734b9c80$464da8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <g2s7mt+h8po@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Miles <d2dMiles at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> > To be quite frank, I do not agree with Mason about English. One of the
> > things which makes English one of the most expressive languages in
> > the world is the fact it is a mongrel.
> >
> > I agree that a large part of English derives from its Anglo-Saxon
> > Germanic roots but the fact remains that French had a dominating
> > effect on English linguistic development following the Norman
> > Conquest and thus there is a large part of our heritage stemming
> > from the Romance side.
> 
> Miles:
> But that does not change English being a "Germanic" language in structure.
> What has changed most is the lexicon of English - most words have French or
> Latin origin. 

Geoff:
I wouldn't agree with that - there is still a very large vocabulary 
derived from German roots. That also underlines the fact that I 
think you missed my point, which was that the reason why we 
have perhaps the most expressive language is because we have a 
huge stock of synonyms and parallel phrases so that we do not 
repeat the same words in a sentence. Take the word "ask". We 
can also use "inquire", "question" (as a verb) "request"   whereas 
in a language such as German you are reduced to something like 
"Darf ich eine Frage fragen?" We can express the present tense in 
three different ways using auxiliary verbs - "I go", "I do go", "I am 
going"-  which in passing has floored many friends I have known 
from mainland Europe. We can have nuances of meaning as in "I 
am happy" as compared with "I am not unhappy". I could 
continue but I won't tonight. It's late over here.

I wouldn't agree that English is easy.... True, you can get a workable 
knowledge of it fairly quickly, but the alternative ways of saying things 
need a lot of practice. It's not necessarily the accent that gives the 
EFL speaker away, it's the misuse of the fine tuning of the language 
if you see what I mean.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Jun 12 22:26:28 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:26:28 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2pjrp+3mbg@eGroups.com>
References: <g2oan4+9itr@eGroups.com> <g2pjrp+3mbg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <41438779F94A451B8B9F344B655C1AAA@FRODO>

| Carol responds:
| 
| I confess myself--disappointed.
| 
| Carol, thanking Alla for the link but considering the "story" barely
| worth reading

[Lee]:
Ah-thanks, Carol.  I thought perhaps I was the only one.  The writing was
not the usual JKR and, I'm sorry, sounded like a mediocre fanfic.

Okay, don't everyone AK me at once! :-)

Lee :-)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 22:42:03 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:42:03 -0000
Subject: A dative case in English?
In-Reply-To: <g2r9b2+il0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s8nr+u40q@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> > Later, (after a reminder that English is a Germanic and not a
Romance language and that modern English is an analytical as opposed
to an "inflectional" language), Mason defines "case" as "the form in
which a noun or pronoun is used, in order to show the relationship in
which it stands to some other word in the sentence" and adds:
> 
> Geoff:
> To be quite frank, I do not agree with Mason about English. One of
the things which makes English one of the most expressive languages in
the world is the fact it is a mongrel.
> 
> I agree that a large part of English derives from its Anglo-Saxon
Germanic roots but the fact remains that French had a dominating
effect on English linguistic development following the Norman 
Conquest and thus there is a large part of our heritage stemming from
the Romance side. <snip>
> 
Carol responds:
Norman French had two important effects, leveling the inflected
endings (which eliminated the dative/accusative distinction, among
other things and made word order an essential component of grammatical
meaning) and adding new words which in some cases replaced Anglo-Saxon
words and in others coexisted with them. However, the fifteen percent
of Anglo-Saxon words that were retained are the heart of the language
and occur more frequently than even the most basic borrowings. To
quote "A History of the English Language," Baugh and Cable, p. 55--as
opposed to any online source: "Apart from pronouns, prepositions,
conjunctions, auxiliary verbs, and the like, they express fundamental
concepts" (examples, minus the Anglo-Saxon forms, include man, wife,
child, house, meat, grass, leaf, good, high, strong, eat, drink,
sleep, live, and fight).

IOW, the heart of the language is still Germanic, despite all the
borrowings from many sources. A significant number of Latin
borrowings, for example, are either liturgical or scientific.

Carol earlier:  
> > More to the point, the section on case in modern English is
followed by a note beginning, "The endeavor to distinguish a *dative*
and an *accusative* case in modern English is at variance with the
genius [spirit] and history of the language.... 
> 
> > It is unphilosophical to re-introduce distinctions which a
language has ceased to recognise.... As there is but one *form* to
denote both the direct and the indirect object, not only is nothing
gained, but an important piece of linguistic history is obscured by
having two names for it. It is much better to use the common name
*objective*"
> 
> Geoff:
> But there is a dative because any English speaker can recognise the
usage without the use of a pronoun.

Carol:
Can they? Ask any person on the street or any teenager of your
acquaintance if they know what the dative case is and can recognize it
in English. No doubt older people who learned Latin or another
inflected language in school know the term, but how many associate it
with English? The average educated English speaker would, I hope have
heard of the *objective* case and be able with little difficulty to
recognize an *indirect object* (and distinguish it from a direct
object  or an object of a preposition or a subject) whether the
indirect object was in the form of a noun or a pronoun, but a dative
in English? I doubt it very much.

I do agree that most English speakers instinctively use the objective
form for indirect objects--I've never heard anyone say, "Give he the
ball"--as opposed to objects of prepositions, for which they often
mistakenly use the subjective case ("to Bill and I"--yecch!). But it's
not a matter of recognizing the "dative usage." It's a matter of using
the objective form of the pronoun (for nouns, the form isn't altered).
Most English speakers also use *direct* objects correctly without ever
having heard of the accusative case. (I've never heard even a small
child say, "He hit I" (though in the case of a compound direct object,
the child might be confused: "Mommy, he hit Billy and I!")

Anyway, I appeal to Potioncat and anyone else not participating in
this thread. Were you taught in your English classes that English had
an accusative and/or dative case (which happen to have identical
forms)? Or were you taught that personal pronouns in (modern) English
have three cases" nominative or subjective, objective, and possessive?
Or were you simply taught about direct and indirect objects and
objects of prepositions using "me," "him, and "her" instead of "I,"
"he," and "she" without the concept of cases being brought in at all?
Or did your English teachers emphasize vocabulary and literature and
not teach grammar at all?
> 
> Geoff:
> The trouble, as I've already hinted, about the title "objective
case" is that for those of us, like myself,  who have had contact with
Latin and German is that I think in terms of these names. The  title
"objective case" means nothing linguistically to me. My first reaction
is that we are in the subjective/objective area - "What am I supposed
to be thinking about objectively here?" OK, so I've missed the point 
but I stay with the comfort zone of the terminology I was taught.

Carol:
But the same is true for those who learned about the various forms of
objects for which the objective case is used and never learned Latin
or another inflected language for which accusative and dative remain
applicable terms. The inflections are gone, along with the distinction
between accusative and dative (and ablative) in English pronouns, not
to mention nouns, for which nominative/subjective and objective have
now merged. Persistence in antiquated terminology can only confuse the
issue. But what could be simpler than subjective case for the subject
of the sentence and objective case for objects of all sorts, once the
concept of "subject" vs. "object" is mastered? It's just simple logic.

Geoff:
<snip> The use of the phrase
>  "objective case" is not prescriptive and it would appear that CJ
and I are both of the opinion that dative and accusative can retain a
place in the descriptive process.

Carol:
How so, when the difference in form no longer exists? Students who
have taken courses in an inflected language would understand the
concept, but those who know only English will be better served, IMO,
by terminology that matches the *function* of the pronouns (subjects
in subjective case, objects in objective case).

BTW, I should break the habit of using "nominative case" instead of
"subjective case" for the sake of consistency. After all, the same
logic applies, and there's no point in clinging to outdated habits
when I can clearly see the logic of the newer terminology (not all
that new, really). I suppose it's like believing that Pluto is a
planet or calling an Apatasaurus a Brontosaurus. It's what I was
taught; therefore, it must be right! :-)

Carol, who would really like to hear some new voices in this thread,
assuming that it hasn't been passed over with horror and revulsion by
the vast majority of posters!




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 22:52:06 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:52:06 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g2s7mt+h8po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2s9am+kjtr@eGroups.com>

Geoff wrote:
>  <snip>
It's not necessarily the accent that gives the EFL speaker away, it's
the misuse of the fine tuning of the language if you see what I mean.

Carol responds:
I agree. I can think of several giveaways: confusion over indefinite
vs. articles, confusion regarding prepositions, and confusion over
idiomatic expressions.

One of my clients, whose native language is Spanish, could never get
"in" and "on" straight. I also remember a student from Argentina who
wrote, "Never look a gift horse at the mouth." My all-time favorite,
though, is the Vietnamese student who wrote an essay entitled,
"Holding Down the Fork."

Carol, who thinks we ought to change the thread title but not sure
what to change it to




From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Fri Jun 13 00:43:20 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (Miles)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:43:20 +0200
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
References: <g2s7mt+h8po@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <031901c8ccee$7bb52150$464da8c0@miles>

>> Miles:
>> But that does not change English being a "Germanic" language in
>> structure. What has changed most is the lexicon of English - most
>> words have French or Latin origin.
>
> Geoff:
> I wouldn't agree with that - there is still a very large vocabulary
> derived from German roots. That also underlines the fact that I
> think you missed my point, which was that the reason why we
> have perhaps the most expressive language is because we have a
> huge stock of synonyms and parallel phrases so that we do not
> repeat the same words in a sentence. Take the word "ask". We
> can also use "inquire", "question" (as a verb) "request"   whereas
> in a language such as German you are reduced to something like
> "Darf ich eine Frage fragen?" We can express the present tense in
> three different ways using auxiliary verbs - "I go", "I do go", "I am
> going"-  which in passing has floored many friends I have known
> from mainland Europe. We can have nuances of meaning as in "I
> am happy" as compared with "I am not unhappy".

Miles:
I never disagreed about English being rich in the way you describe it. And 
you are perfectly right that those nuances can still "floor" (nice one, had 
to look it up ;) ) me after many years of reading English.

But I have to disagree that this distinguishes English from - well, lets 
take German as an example. To ask is "fragen", but there is also 
"*be*fragen" (to consult, or to query, interview...), "*hinter*fragen" (to 
challenge sth), "konsultieren" (to inquire), "verhren" (to interrogate) and 
many more. Many languages have different sources for their lexicon, and 
words that are seemingly synonyms are not if you consider the nuances of 
usage.

Geoff
> I wouldn't agree that English is easy.... True, you can get a workable
> knowledge of it fairly quickly, but the alternative ways of saying
> things need a lot of practice. It's not necessarily the accent that
> gives the EFL speaker away, it's the misuse of the fine tuning of the
> language
> if you see what I mean.

Miles:
That's exactly what I wanted to say. I'm quite often clueless about what 
word to use, even after consulting my dictionary. I know that I do want to 
express something between the lines, as I would do by choosing my words in 
German prudently (wrong word? adverb?), but I can only guess using my 
"instinct", which is a poor advisor without ever being in any English 
speaking country. Sigh. But really, I think that would be similar with 
French, Russian, or Finnish.

Carol:
>Carol, who would really like to hear some new voices in this thread,
>assuming that it hasn't been passed over with horror and revulsion by
>the vast majority of posters!

Miles
I cannot add to your really interesting discussion, but be assured I read it 
;). Maybe one thing: I studied English at school for nine years, but I can't 
remember being taught about cases in English, neither the "historical" ones, 
nor the "modern" ones. I'm sure we talked about it, but I can't recall 
anything about it. And before reading your discussion here I didn't think 
about English cases at all, because they are not really important if you 
don't analyse, but simply understand and speak/write the language. That 
might support Carol's position.

Miles, who still doesn't know about "it's me!" or "it's I!", though the 
latter sounds wrong 




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 01:23:43 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:23:43 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rv56+o7b6@eGroups.com>
References: <g2rv56+o7b6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4851CC1F.4050406@yahoo.com>

CJ (Earlier):
But I was struck by the t-shirts.

Alla:
Unless T-shirts were saying  there is an Order of Phoenix
organization and we are members of it, I do not see how they were
advertising anything.

CJ (Now):
Admittedly, the story doesn't *say* they're OA t-shirts, but I think 
that's what we're supposed to infer. And, come to think of it -- wizards 
wearing t-shirts?

CJ (Earlier):
Though the story says "late teens", James must be at least eighteen at
this point

 > Alla:
 >
 > Question, I always thought that you can say that person is in his
 > late teens until person is twenty, is it not correct?

CJ (Now):
Technically, yes. But (and I can only speak to American English here), 
we generally call anyone 18 or older young adults, not teens. So in my 
dialect at least "late teen" would imply 16 or 17.

Anyone

Alla:
I am also not sure what is wrong with arrogance if one fighting enemy
with it.

Arrogance disregards safety, causes foolish mistakes and -- as James, 
Lily (and nearly Harry) learn the hard way -- gets you killed.

Confidence in one's abilities would be a good quality, though I'm not 
sure how a couple of teenagers could have anywhere near the sort of 
crime-fighting experience necessary to have learned it. But confidence 
and arrogance are completely different animals.

CJ




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 01:37:54 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:37:54 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <4851CC1F.4050406@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2sj1i+1050m@eGroups.com>

> CJ (Now):
> Admittedly, the story doesn't *say* they're OA t-shirts, but I 
think 
> that's what we're supposed to infer. And, come to think of it -- 
wizards 
> wearing t-shirts?

Alla:

Well, yes there is a golden bird on them and sure, I think us readers 
are supposed to infer that, but how anybody else is supposed to infer 
that golden bird on T-shirt means that those two guys are members of 
secret terrorism fighting organization, I do not get.




> CJ (Now):
> Technically, yes. But (and I can only speak to American English 
here), 
> we generally call anyone 18 or older young adults, not teens. So in 
my 
> dialect at least "late teen" would imply 16 or 17.

Alla:

Thanks. Myself I would probably not call any person whose age I am 
not sure of teenager just because person can be offended, but if I 
know the age, I think I would.


> Alla:
> I am also not sure what is wrong with arrogance if one fighting 
enemy
> with it.

CJ: 
> Arrogance disregards safety, causes foolish mistakes and -- as 
James, 
> Lily (and nearly Harry) learn the hard way -- gets you killed.
> 
> Confidence in one's abilities would be a good quality, though I'm 
not 
> sure how a couple of teenagers could have anywhere near the sort of 
> crime-fighting experience necessary to have learned it. But 
confidence 
> and arrogance are completely different animals.


Alla:

I meant what is wrong with arrogance in this particular episode from 
their lives, sorry. I know what can be wrong with arrogance in 
general. And, I will not surprised at all if at seventeen or eighteen 
James and Sirius indeed already had quite a lot of that experience 
that caused them to be arrogant or confident, depending how one looks 
at it.

And actually the words that she used to me implies that she portrayed 
them as rather confident as well.




From bathbaby18 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 12 20:33:39 2008
From: bathbaby18 at yahoo.com (bathbaby18)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:33:39 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
Message-ID: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>

I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance

bathbaby18



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 01:57:27 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:57:27 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sk67+i1ag@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> 

Alla:

Eh, I believe there are so many books that are better than Harry 
Potter. And this is from someone who loves Harry dearly, BUT if you 
are talking only about the books of similar genre, on that I will 
agree with you.

I tried to get into a book with child protagonist who has some sort 
of encounter with magic quite a few times after I finished DH. Nope, 
I could not do it.

 To me nothing compares to HP, nothing just as exciting, etc. I mean, 
I love "Dark is rising" and "Golden compass", but I read them while I 
was still reading Harry, so that does not count, I suppose, but if I 
did not read those I highly recommend it.


But today I started a story with the boy who becomes an apprentice to 
the wizard with the beard and so far I am loving it so much.

It is the first part of the trilogy and it is called  "The magic 
thief" by Sarah Prineas. The characters are great and the premise is 
interesting.




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 02:04:25 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:04:25 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2p3jn+ehpb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2skj9+v39o@eGroups.com>

> Potioncat:
> Sort of like another challenge: here's the middle, now write the 
> beginning and end.

zgirnius:
It's obvious, is it not? <bg>

James and Sirius were joyriding on Sirius' newly charmed Muggle 
motorcycle, in a Muggle area. This was reported by some well-meaning 
middle-aged witch, and Arthur's predecessor at the Misuse of Muggle 
Artifacts office was sent with a couple of colleagues to stop them 
and repair the mess they had made. Meanwhile, a couple of Muggle 
policemen observed the teens driving at speeds that made them a 
danger to themselves and others, without helmets, and tried to pull 
them over as well.

Which is the point at which the story begins.

I suppose it ends with the poor Ministry officials coming to, 
Episkeying each other, Obliviating the cops and numerous persons 
around the neighborhood, fixing the cop's car with magic, and finally 
going out for a firewhiskey together after a long, hard night.






From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 03:06:38 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:06:38 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2rv56+o7b6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2so7u+9584@eGroups.com>

> Kemper:
> However, they didn't seem to feel as though the police were in that 
> much peril.
> 
> CJ:
> Feel? Or care?
> 
> Alla:
> I do not quite get it. What peril was police in? From DE you mean? 
> Sure they were and I speculate that James and Sirius were thinking 
> that they are also protecting Muggle police from the DE. 

Kemper now:
I don't think so.  If they wanted to protect the Muggle police, they
should have flown that stupid motorcycle /before/ the DEs got close
enough to them.  The DEs weren't after the Muggles, they were after
the cock-y teens. :)


> Alla:
> I believe muggle police would have been and should have been really 
> really grateful to James and Sirius had they any clue what was 
> really happening.

Kemper now:
If they had know, the would've been hella pissed.  Of course, this is
only my speculation.

Kemper




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 03:15:48 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:15:48 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2sog8+peen@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2sop4+gvu0@eGroups.com>

Kemper now:
> I don't think so. If they wanted to protect the Muggle police, they
> should have flown that stupid motorcycle /before/ the DEs got close
> enough to them. The DEs weren't after the Muggles, they were after
> the cock-y teens. :)

Alla:

I agree that DE were likely after James and Sirius, although when DE
will pass up a possibility to hurt a muggle? But that was not my main
point, I was not saying that James and Sirius' main purpose was to
protect muggle police, although again that we can speculate and
speculate, but I was thinking that they were doing their mission and
since muggle police showed up, they will not  let them be killed by 
DE,
no?

Sort of secondary unexpected task, if that makes sense.

If I am right and James and Sirius are doing that, well, I really 
could care less if they are doing this the way they did, I figure 
muggle police can handle being talked down by loud mouthed teens who 
are actually taking terrorists off the streets. 


>
> > Alla:
> > I believe muggle police would have been and should have been
really
> > really grateful to James and Sirius had they any clue what was
> > really happening.
>
> Kemper now:
> If they had know, the would've been hella pissed. Of course, this
is
> only my speculation.


Alla:

If there was a possibility that DE would have hurt them, just for fun
of it, you think muggle police would rather die than let those cocky
teens protect them? Eh, if so, I think they are stupid indeed.






From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Fri Jun 13 04:15:56 2008
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:15:56 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
Message-ID: <bf8.30d99fc4.35834e7c@aol.com>

     
 
 


zgirnius:
It's obvious, is it not? <bg>

James and  Sirius were joyriding on Sirius' newly charmed Muggle 
motorcycle, in  a Muggle area. This was reported by some well-meaning 
middle-aged  witch, and Arthur's predecessor at the Misuse of Muggle 
Artifacts  office was sent with a couple of colleagues to stop them 
and repair  the mess they had made. Meanwhile, a couple of Muggle 
policemen  observed the teens driving at speeds that made them a 
danger to  themselves and others, without helmets, and tried to pull 
them over  as well.

Which is the point at which the story begins.

I  suppose it ends with the poor Ministry officials coming to,  
Episkeying each other, Obliviating the cops and numerous persons  
around the neighborhood, fixing the cop's car with magic, and  finally 
going out for a firewhiskey together after a long, hard  night.





Sandy:
 
I like this interpretation better than any other I have read  and think it is 
probably in the correct vein. I do try to keep in mind how  young they all 
were when they joined the Order, and how young James and  Lily were when they 
died, but this sounds like a Marauders prank to me. I  feel that if it were DE's 
chasing them they would have had no qualms about  AKing the policemen on the 
spot. Just my opinion, even though zgurnius may  have been kidding.
 
Sandy





**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 
2008.      (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Fri Jun 13 04:23:21 2008
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:23:21 EDT
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] books like harry potter
Message-ID: <bf1.2d1eb240.35835039@aol.com>

     
 
 


I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if  
there are any good books that were close to being like Harry  
Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in  Advance

bathbaby18


 
Sandy:
 
Are you looking for young adult books or an adult series? If  you are looking 
for an adult series I recommend The Dresden Files by Jim  Butcher. There are 
currently ten books in the series and they are about  another wizard also 
named Harry. The first book in the series is "Storm  Front". I really like them.
 
Sandy





**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best 
2008.      (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 13:21:19 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:21:19 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <bf1.2d1eb240.35835039@aol.com>
Message-ID: <g2ts8f+9qqq@eGroups.com>

> Sandy:
>  
> Are you looking for young adult books or an adult series? If  you 
are looking 
> for an adult series I recommend The Dresden Files by Jim  Butcher. 
There are 
> currently ten books in the series and they are about  another 
wizard also 
> named Harry. The first book in the series is "Storm  Front". I 
really like them.
>  


Alla:

I love them too. I also want to say that even though I was very 
dissapointed to learn that Jim Butcher considers the series to be 
open ended and so far plans to write something like 23 books in these 
series, as of today I think every other book only gets better than 
the previous one. Well, actually no, I take that back, I think Small 
Favor, while very interesting ( last book as of today) was not better 
than books 6-9. I found White night to be beyond good, I thought it 
was great.

I also think that it is possible to get what is going on and read the 
books before book 6 and even after book 6 as stand alones, but 
starting with book 6 you will miss a lot of character development if 
you start say with book 7 or 8.

I know, I read book 1 and then book 6-10 and then went back :)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 13:23:21 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:23:21 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <bf8.30d99fc4.35834e7c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <g2tsc9+ms8h@eGroups.com>

> 
> 
> Sandy:
>  
> I like this interpretation better than any other I have read  and 
think it is 
> probably in the correct vein. I do try to keep in mind how  young 
they all 
> were when they joined the Order, and how young James and  Lily were 
when they 
> died, but this sounds like a Marauders prank to me. I  feel that if 
it were DE's 
> chasing them they would have had no qualms about  AKing the 
policemen on the 
> spot. Just my opinion, even though zgurnius may  have been kidding.
>  


Alla:

Could be, but to me three man did not act very friendly and since it 
was middle of the war, I go with DE. I mean and sure they would not 
hesitate to attack muggles , if they are DE, but who is to say that 
James and Sirius could not outbeat them before they did so?

Heee, now I want to know for sure from JKR's mouth.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 13 15:13:54 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:13:54 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2sk67+i1ag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u2ri+njes@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
 
> 
> But today I started a story with the boy who becomes an apprentice to 
> the wizard with the beard and so far I am loving it so much.
> 
> It is the first part of the trilogy and it is called  "The magic 
> thief" by Sarah Prineas. The characters are great and the premise is 
> interesting.

Magpie:
Maybe check out (for the OP not necessarily you, Alla, but of course 
you're welcome to as well!) Diana Wynn Jones's books. She has written a 
ton, but the Chrestomanci quartet involves magical schools. Perhaps 
especially The Lives of Christopher Chant and Charmed Life.

-m





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 13 15:15:58 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:58 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2sop4+gvu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u2ve+d5nj@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> I agree that DE were likely after James and Sirius, although when DE
> will pass up a possibility to hurt a muggle? But that was not my 
main
> point, I was not saying that James and Sirius' main purpose was to
> protect muggle police, although again that we can speculate and
> speculate, but I was thinking that they were doing their mission and
> since muggle police showed up, they will not  let them be killed by 
> DE,
> no?
> 
> Sort of secondary unexpected task, if that makes sense.
> 
> If I am right and James and Sirius are doing that, well, I really 
> could care less if they are doing this the way they did, I figure 
> muggle police can handle being talked down by loud mouthed teens 
who 
> are actually taking terrorists off the streets. 

Magpie:
I don't remember exactly how it ends, but I feel like I've read 
references to J&S just leaving the DEs there for the cops to deal 
with. So when they come to they'll get hurt.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 13 15:17:54 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:17:54 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2tsc9+ms8h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u332+tk66@eGroups.com>


> Alla:
> 
> Could be, but to me three man did not act very friendly and since it 
> was middle of the war, I go with DE. I mean and sure they would not 
> hesitate to attack muggles , if they are DE, but who is to say that 
> James and Sirius could not outbeat them before they did so?
> 
> Heee, now I want to know for sure from JKR's mouth.

Magpie:
Don't James and Sirius go stiff in that bird-dog way when they see them 
too? I assumed this was them dealing with Serious Business.

-m





From roulston112131 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 15:36:03 2008
From: roulston112131 at yahoo.com (Ruth Roulston)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: books like harry potter
Message-ID: <447572.64912.qm@web52203.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Yes, I second the motion on Jim Butcher's series of The Dresden Files. His writing style is as easy to read as Rowling's. I love his storefront sign: Harry Dresden - Wizard. The plots take a little getting used to but the stories are most enjoyable. Ruth.


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 15:57:24 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:57:24 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u5d4+7iiq@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...>
wrote:
>
> I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> bathbaby18
>

bboyminn:

If you are looking for 'boy wizard' books specifically, then 
consider "The Bartimaeus trilogy" by Jonathan Stroud. 

The three books in the series are -

'The Amulet of Samarkand' (1)

'The Golem's Eye' (2)

'Ptolemy's Gate' (3)

The main character (real name: Nathaniel, magic name: Jonathan
Mandrake) is a little more annoying that Harry, but still
interesting. This series has a completely different take on
magic than Harry Potter. Here magic is a product of summoning
various levels of demonic spirits.

You can read a summary at the website -

http://www.bartimaeustrilogy.com/about.html

Near the bottom, you will find brief excerpts from each book.


Now if you just want fun easy fantasy books to read, then I
recommend the 'Artemis Fowl' series. I found them very funny
filled with captivating characters, and at the same time 
containing an excellent mystery and suspense. 

'Artemis Fowl' is, in a sense, a total suspension of reality,
but I really think the author makes the absurdly unbelievable
very believable by creating lovable, but annoying, characters
and a really good underlying story. 

http://www.artemisfowl.com/home.html


Not about a boy wizard in the normal sense at all but I was
fascinated by the Eragon - Inheritance Series, and can't wait
for the next book to come out. This is more Tolkien-like but 
not quite as long winded. In a sense, it is a horse and sword
adventure that takes place in a mythical land. Eragon, through
a set of circumstances, becomes a Dragon Rider, and as is
typical in this type of story, is further forces by circumstance
to fight against, the one lone remaining Dragon Rider, who just
happens to be the evil king. 

Sounds a little clich?, but I found the story and the characters
fascinating. Christopher Paolini has an incredible grasp of
detail. That's also one of the things that drew me to Harry 
Potter. The world is so well realized, and I find that same is
true in Eragon's world. 


I found 'Dark is Rising' to be interesting enough to buy the
whole series. The main character, so far, doesn't really do that
much. It seems to me that he just gets into tighter and tighter
situations, then out of no where magic occurs and the day is
saved. But the source of that magic is unclear.

Still I found the characters interesting and engaging, and am
eager to read the rest of the story.


In more of a science fiction genre, the absolute classic and
dearly love stories of "Ender's Game" and "Ender's Shadow" 
by Orson Scott Card are first rate. Both these stories continue
on with three additional books each. Though they continue the 
stories of the central character, they are not so much a 
continuation of the same story. 

That should keep you busy for a while.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 16:06:18 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:06:18 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2sj1i+1050m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u5tq+bt6r@eGroups.com>

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > CJ (Now):
> > Admittedly, the story doesn't *say* they're OA t-shirts, 
> > but I think that's what we're supposed to infer. And, come
> > to think of it -- wizards wearing t-shirts?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, yes there is a golden bird on them and sure, I think us
> readers are supposed to infer that, but how anybody else is 
> supposed to infer that golden bird on T-shirt means that those
> two guys are members of secret terrorism fighting organization,
> I do not get.
> 


bboyminn:

But /was/ the Golden Bird really a golden bird? Remember we
are getting our impressions from the eyes and minds of the
police. For example, when Sirius and James pull 'drumsticks'
from their back pockets. 

I'm wondering if, and my first impression was, that the T-shirts
had the Golden Snitch on it. The police office saw something
golden with wings and could only assume it was a bird. 

I think if it were any type of common representation of the
mythical Phoenix, the police officers would have recognized
it as such. A Phoenix is not that uncommon a symbol.

steve/bboyminn




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 16:33:30 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:33:30 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u2ri+njes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u7gq+tucm@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> Maybe check out (for the OP not necessarily you, Alla, but of course 
> you're welcome to as well!) Diana Wynn Jones's books. She has written 
a 
> ton, but the Chrestomanci quartet involves magical schools. Perhaps 
> especially The Lives of Christopher Chant and Charmed Life.


Alla:

OOOOOOO, how could I forget those? I was I guess thinking of books I 
picked up after Harry ended and I read a lot when I was waiting for 
next HP book.

I cannot say that I could get into all Jones' books, but absolutely I 
love Crestomanci books. Have you read two latest ones? I am not sure 
how new they are, but I read them recently enough -

Conrad's fate and Pinhoe egg.




From kempermentor at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 17:10:12 2008
From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:10:12 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u5d4+7iiq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>


> > bathbaby18:
> > I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> > there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> > Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> If you are looking for 'boy wizard' books specifically, then 
> consider "The Bartimaeus trilogy" by Jonathan Stroud. 

Kemper now:
I agree enthusiastically with this suggestion.
It's a wonderful story, and, at least for me, pulled my heart strings
more without any sentimentality. 


> bboyminn:
> Not about a boy wizard in the normal sense at all but I was
> fascinated by the Eragon - Inheritance Series, and can't wait
> for the next book to come out. 

Kemper now:
I disagree vehemently with this suggestion.
But make up your own mind and share with us.

 
> bboyminn:
> In more of a science fiction genre, the absolute classic and
> dearly love stories of "Ender's Game" and "Ender's Shadow" 
> by Orson Scott Card are first rate. 

Kemper now:
I agree fervently with this suggestion.
I'm so looking forward to the movie and hope it is not made into a
kids film.

Adding this series by Rick Riordan to the fantasy mix:
Percy Jackson and the Olympians 

Each book in the series is better than the last.  The read is quick,
and the end of each chapter (especially in the last two books)
compelled me to read the beginning of the next... a bit like HP.

Adding this series by Timothy Zahn to the sci/fi list:
Dragonback

It's a bit on the formulaic side.  But it's a quick read.  Ender's
Game and Ender's Shadow are far more superior.

I know you asked for books, but allow me to suggest a cartoon:
Avatar: The Last Airbender

Much of the series is out on DVD except for the last 6-ish episodes
which haven't aired yet (they're due to air later this month or early
next.)  You can also hunt around and find them online.  For an easy
reference to episodes, you can search "Avatar episodes" on wikipedia.
A movie is being discussed with M. Night Shamalan(?) directing.




From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 18:08:06 2008
From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:08:06 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ud26+eq3g@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> bathbaby18
>


lizzyben:

Well, the "Twilight" series by Stephanie Meyer is pretty good, if not 
very similar to Harry Potter. It's also YA fiction, about a girl who 
falls in love with a vampire. 

The "Full Metal Alchemist" series is also very good, & similar to HP. 
It's also about a magical world ruled by alchemy, & has a lot of 
action, adventure & truly poignant scenes. The only thing is, it's 
not a novel, but a manga series.

And Madeline L'Engle's "Wrinkle In Time" is a classic, my all-time 
favorite book ever.  It's also fantasy, w/some sci-fi elements. Hope 
this helps!


lizzyben




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 18:14:08 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:14:08 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2uddg+vm8q@eGroups.com>

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > If you are looking for 'boy wizard' books specifically, then 
> > consider "The Bartimaeus trilogy" by Jonathan Stroud. 
> 
> Kemper now:
> I agree enthusiastically with this suggestion.
> It's a wonderful story, and, at least for me, pulled my heart 
strings
> more without any sentimentality. 

Alla:

It was very well done, I agree, but certainly not a book that I would 
care to reread.

 
> Kemper now:
<SNIP>
> Adding this series by Rick Riordan to the fantasy mix:
> Percy Jackson and the Olympians 
> 
> Each book in the series is better than the last.  The read is quick,
> and the end of each chapter (especially in the last two books)
> compelled me to read the beginning of the next... a bit like HP.

Alla:

Oh, oh do tell how you liked the last book? I loved it.

 Those are the series that I do like a lot, even though I think that 
Harry tops them, but it is a lot of fun, especially if one loves 
greek myths.





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 19:15:22 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:15:22 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <48517E7D.5050401@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g2uh0a+91mu@eGroups.com>

> CJ: 
> The more we learn about James, the more I'm of the opinion the only 
> things distinguishing him from teenage Snape were better social 
skills 
> and a hot bath. James may have eschewed Dark Magic, but as he seems 
to 
> have found plenty of questionable uses for the good stuff I'm not 
sure 
> that's more than a technicality.

Zara:
Yes, that would seem to be the case. Young Sev may also have had a 
somewhat more intellectual bent. The difference is that James went on 
to join the Order, and Sev the Death Eaters, so that while James 
remained an arrogant jerk (that brief description is my opinion, 
naturally), he was an arrogant jerk on the right side.

I suppose that if this incident was between 6th and 7th years, and 
resulted in something more than a spectacular crash, it could be the 
reason Lily and Albus were impressed. Without this (or something 
similar) I would have to agree it is hard to see why he was made Head 
Boy.








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 19:44:07 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:44:07 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2u332+tk66@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2uim7+gm8i@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> Don't James and Sirius go stiff in that bird-dog way when they see 
them 
> too? I assumed this was them dealing with Serious Business.

Zara:
Representatives of the Ministry, that is, fully qualified adult 
wizards, would be serious business compared to dealing with Muggle 
police. They might, actually, be able to *do* something to Our 
Heroes, rather than standing around being fat, ignorant Muggles it is 
amusing to poke fun at until one tires of the game.

> Sandy:
> I like this interpretation better than any other I have read and 
think it is
probably in the correct vein. I do try to keep in mind how young they 
all
were when they joined the Order, and how young James and Lily were 
when they
died, but this sounds like a Marauders prank to me. I feel that if it 
were DE's
chasing them they would have had no qualms about AKing the policemen 
on the
spot. 

Zara:
Why thank you! You surmised correctly that I was jesting, but you 
make a good point. (Though I would still say the smart money is on  
Rowling writing the scene imagining Death Eaters or other Voldemort 
supporters on the brooms.). 

If they were DEs, they were dumb DEs. To AK anyone, they might need 
to have come close enough for Our Heroes' defense to work, but a trio 
of Reductor or Blasting Curses launched at the cars/cops/boys from 
the end of the alley before swooping in for the kill would have been 
sensible. Unless, of course, avoiding damage to the cops was a 
consideration of the people on brooms, which would certainly not 
apply to Death Eaters.




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 13 19:48:53 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:48:53 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2uim7+gm8i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2uiv5+5cg8@eGroups.com>

> > Magpie:
> > Don't James and Sirius go stiff in that bird-dog way when they 
see 
> them 
> > too? I assumed this was them dealing with Serious Business.
> 
> Zara:
> Representatives of the Ministry, that is, fully qualified adult 
> wizards, would be serious business compared to dealing with Muggle 
> police. They might, actually, be able to *do* something to Our 
> Heroes, rather than standing around being fat, ignorant Muggles it 
is 
> amusing to poke fun at until one tires of the game.

Magpie:
But they wouldn't be bad guys, which I recall was my impression. They 
would be somebody who could get them in trouble. I wouldn't expect 
them to knock them out either. I'd think they'd react to Aurors the 
same way as they would Muggle police, actually. It would require a 
little more work, but I think they'd be snarky and escape.

-m




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 19:56:39 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:56:39 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2uiv5+5cg8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2ujdn+ljrg@eGroups.com>

> Magpie:
> But they wouldn't be bad guys, which I recall was my impression. They 
> would be somebody who could get them in trouble. I wouldn't expect 
> them to knock them out either. I'd think they'd react to Aurors the 
> same way as they would Muggle police, actually. It would require a 
> little more work, but I think they'd be snarky and escape.
> 


Alla;

Agreed, and the expression that you were looking for, James and Sirius 
are portrayed "alert as gundogs", which to me also suggest that they 
see real bad guys. IMO of course.




From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Fri Jun 13 20:04:43 2008
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:04:43 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>
References: <g2u5d4+7iiq@eGroups.com> <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0806131304t2009f5a3rd636e63b617b6e74@mail.gmail.com>

Kemper:
> I know you asked for books, but allow me to suggest a cartoon:
> Avatar: The Last Airbender
>
> Much of the series is out on DVD except for the last 6-ish episodes
> which haven't aired yet (they're due to air later this month or early
> next.) You can also hunt around and find them online. For an easy
> reference to episodes, you can search "Avatar episodes" on wikipedia.
> A movie is being discussed with M. Night Shamalan(?) directing.

Ali:
Really?  Nothing about Avatar & M. Night's style seems to jive
together for me.  Oh well.  Avatar is quite a good cartoon, though.
Solid storyline.

Anyway, per the original question, might I suggest the Young Wizards
series?  I find it more endearing than the HP series (matter of
personal opinion, of course).  Supposing that you don't mind that the
book hinges on the universe contracting (not expanding), I think HP &
Young Wizards share enough qualities that one can easily transition
between the two series.  Diane Duane is the writer, and she's pretty
active on her website:
http://www.youngwizards.com/

~Ali



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Jun 13 21:00:03 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:00:03 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2un4j+2tes@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...> wrote:
>
> I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> bathbaby18

Geoff:
Not quite like Harry but I have mentioned these books a couple of 
times before on the groups. They are set in the North of England 
involving two non-magical children working with a wizard who is 
connected to one of the legends of the area.

They are "The Weirdstone of Brisingamen" and a sequel "The Moon 
of Gomrath" by Alan Garner. Written in the 1960s they are still in 
print. You will find that some of the story reinds you of Tolkien 
and Lewis in places because he draws on the same source material.






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 21:23:52 2008
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara)
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:23:52 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2ujdn+ljrg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2uoh8+jmh2@eGroups.com>

> > Magpie:
> > But they wouldn't be bad guys, which I recall was my impression. 
They 
> > would be somebody who could get them in trouble. I wouldn't 
expect 
> > them to knock them out either. I'd think they'd react to Aurors 
the 
> > same way as they would Muggle police, actually. It would require 
a 
> > little more work, but I think they'd be snarky and escape.
> > 
> 
> 
> Alla;
> 
> Agreed, and the expression that you were looking for, James and 
Sirius 
> are portrayed "alert as gundogs", which to me also suggest that 
they 
> see real bad guys. IMO of course.

Zara:
Surely, James occasionally looked alert, even, very alert, or "alert 
as a gundog" during Quidditch games? Heck, Sirius managed to look 
alert in a doglike way when James spotted Sev sitting in the bushes 
with his nose in a test paper a year or so before this story is 
supposed to be set. All I get from that is that the people on brooms 
were more of a threat than the fat cop it was funny to irritate. 
(Almost anything/anyone would be). There is nothing within the text 
which indicates the people on brooms were bad guys in any objective 
sense. From everything we know about the characters and Rowling's 
opinion of them, I think it is likely they were "bad guys" of some 
kind (DEs, or given Sandy's point about their lack of deadliness, 
perhaps school-age, unmarked members of the infamous "Slytherin Gang" 
up to no good), but nothing they do or say, nothing in their 
description (no masks mentioned, no Dark Marks in the sky, e. g.) 
indicates this.

I am not sure I buy the argument that 17/18 year old James and Sirius 
had achieved such a degree of responsibility and understanding that 
they would not have damaged cars and brooms and bodies in a 
successful attempt to evade both Muggle and Wizard law enforcement, 
so therefore it had to be real bad guys.

(Not Aurors, by the way, I was suggesting Misuse of Muggle Artifacts 
Office employees.)




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 23:31:50 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:31:50 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2u5tq+bt6r@eGroups.com>
References: <g2u5tq+bt6r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <48530366.3060706@yahoo.com>

bboyminn:
But /was/ the Golden Bird really a golden bird? ...
I'm wondering if, and my first impression was, that
the T-shirts had the Golden Snitch on it.

CJ:
Of course, the story really does leave us to assume, just as we're 
assuming James's and Sirius's pursuers were DEs. But Sirius didn't play 
quidditch, so why would he be wearing a quidditch shirt?

As an aside, t-shirts being muggle dress, why are they wearing them at all?

bboyminn:
I think if it were any type of common representation of the
mythical Phoenix, the police officers would have recognized
it as such. A Phoenix is not that uncommon a symbol.

CJ:
But is it really so easily distinguished from other birds, especially at 
a quick glance by a police officer preoccupied with more important 
matters (such as disentangling his behind from a sidewing mirror)? How 
distinguishable, for example, is this representation of a golden phoenix 
from, say, a hawk?

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2857440290090792984CnOAAE

CJ:
the only things distinguishing [James] from teenage Snape were better 
social skills and a hot bath.

Zara:
The difference is that James went on to join the Order ... he was an 
arrogant jerk on the right side.

CJ (Now):
True. I was thinking of when they were both Hogwarts teenagers but, yes, 
obviously they turned out quite differently in the end.

CJ




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 13 23:54:54 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:54:54 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Link to short story that JKR wrote for
 charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2sj1i+1050m@eGroups.com>
References: <g2sj1i+1050m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <485308CE.1030306@yahoo.com>

Alla:

Well, yes there is a golden bird on them and sure, I think us readers
are supposed to infer that, but how anybody else is supposed to infer
that golden bird on T-shirt means that those two guys are members of
secret terrorism fighting organization, I do not get.

"Super-secret" not meant to imply the DEs don't know about it. In VWII 
Voldemort not only knows about the OP, he's pretty muched managed to 
piece together entire membership list. Course, everyone -- including DD 
-- showing up en masse at the MoM sort of gave it away anyway.

CJ
CJ:
Arrogance disregards safety, causes foolish mistakes ...

Alla:
I meant what is wrong with arrogance in this particular episode ...

CJ:
I'd say the same thing that's wrong with arrogance in general. It leads 
to sloppiness and an overestimation of one's own abilities.

In all this discussion, I keep trying to imagine Moody charging into 
battle with anything like James's cockiness, and I just can't. Alertness 
and confidence, yes, but also acutely aware that in war *anything* can 
happen, and even the lowliest DE might get off a lucky shot that not all 
the experience or superior skill in the world could stop.

Alla:
And, I will not surprised at all if at seventeen or eighteen
James and Sirius indeed already had quite a lot of that experience
that caused them to be arrogant or confident ...

CJ:
Except that we know that James had been arrogant since long before he 
had any cause to be -- since his early days at Hogwarts at least.

And yes, I agree that James and Sirius also displayed confidence, but 
where that confidence *came from* is the question.

CJ





From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 00:09:31 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:09:31 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2uoh8+jmh2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v27r+451h@eGroups.com>

 > Alla;
> > 
> > Agreed, and the expression that you were looking for, James and 
> Sirius 
> > are portrayed "alert as gundogs", which to me also suggest that 
> they 
> > see real bad guys. IMO of course.
> 
> Zara:
> Surely, James occasionally looked alert, even, very alert, 
or "alert 
> as a gundog" during Quidditch games? Heck, Sirius managed to look 
> alert in a doglike way when James spotted Sev sitting in the bushes 
> with his nose in a test paper a year or so before this story is 
> supposed to be set. All I get from that is that the people on 
brooms 
> were more of a threat than the fat cop it was funny to irritate.

Magpie:
Yup, that was the line I remembered and I still get the impression 
they're DEs. I think the idea here is that James and Sirius are being 
dashing and heroic and heroic. Not knocking out poor people from the 
Ministry (since when they do show up in person when somebody's even 
doing magic, much less flying a motorcycle), which seems far too much 
overkill to me. I think we're supposed to see the difference between 
the way they can joke around but are still alert as gundogs when a 
threat appears.

James did have a similar expression when going after Snape. Snape was 
up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts and, perhaps more important, he 
was prey. All these things give me the impression these are too OotP 
boys on the job. And also, most obviously, it's the stronger choice. 
This is the type of scene, imo, where JKR wouldn't pull her punches 
and use Ministry employees checking for magical use in front of 
Muggles when she could use DEs--or if not DEs, at least general bad 
guys. Ministry employees who work in Arthur's department imo aren't 
significantly more of a threat when you're James and Sirius.

-m




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Sat Jun 14 00:13:35 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:13:35 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is n...
In-Reply-To: <g2v27r+451h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2v2ff+m461@eGroups.com>

Arrgh! Not enough sleep last night:

> Magpie:
> Yup, that was the line I remembered and I still get the impression 
> they're DEs. I think the idea here is that James and Sirius are 
being 
> dashing and heroic and heroic. 

Magpie again:
Make that "dashing and arrogant and heroic."

Magpie before:
> James did have a similar expression when going after Snape. Snape 
was 
> up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts and, perhaps more important, he 
> was prey. All these things give me the impression these are too 
OotP 
> boys on the job. 

Magpie now:
they are TWO boys on the job.

It's a tiny ficlet and there's little to be gained from the bad guys 
really being beaurocrats and the golden bird on the tee-shirt 
actually being a ball with wings.

-m




From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Sat Jun 14 00:15:31 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (Miles)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:15:31 +0200
Subject: OT: Problems with google mail?
Message-ID: <00a201c8cdb3$c2ffc040$464da8c0@miles>

Hi,

I recently switched to google mail for my Yahoo lists. When I write a 
message to the list, I see it on the Yahoo page (so it does not get lost), 
but I do not receive my own mail via my pop3 mailing programme, but I do get 
answers to my mails. I receive all messages as single mails and never had 
that problem before. Does anyone know this problem?

Miles 




From jeopardy18 at comcast.net  Sat Jun 14 02:46:56 2008
From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:46:56 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2s173+njse@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g2vbf0+oou6@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I know that there could be no comparison but I was wondering if
> there are any good books that were close to being like Harry
> Potter or any good books along those lines. Thanks in Advance
> 
> bathbaby18
>


The Lemony Snicket Series of Unfortunate Event books have a similar 
style as Harry Potter and they mix in tragedy with humor as well. 




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sat Jun 14 06:14:20 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:14:20 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>
References: <g2u5d4+7iiq@eGroups.com> <g2u9lk+v4br@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <D3AE8EA971B54C0AAFB213BACBCD5A03@FRODO>

Personally, I've developed a liking for D.J. MacHale's "Pendragon" books of
which nine have been written.  One more to go.

If you wand true literary stile, wrong books; these are written with a lot
of narrative in contemporary teen-friendly speak.  The books deal with
travel through these flume things to various territories which can be either
different places or times.  The main protagonist is a 14-year-old boy who
has to learn a lot very fast.  The antagonist is a truly evil, nasty guy who
uses the power of deception and can change his shape, etc. 

I never got into The Bartimaeus books.  They weren't true wizardry as I see
it, and the whole use of demons was uncomfortable.  And the Ender
books...didn't they start out with a guy who's drinking heavily or
something?

If you want a strange set of books to read, try "The Spellsinger."

Cheers,

Lee




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Jun 14 06:19:01 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:19:01 -0000
Subject: Grammatical case and tangents / the new ficlet
Message-ID: <g2vnsl+ih02@eGroups.com>

Carol quoted in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36866>:

<< "In Early Modern English, there were two second-person personal
pronouns: thou, the informal singular pronoun, and ye, which was both
the plural pronoun and the formal singular pronoun (snip) Like other
personal pronouns, thou and ye had different forms depending on their
grammatical case; specifically, objective form of thou was thee, its
possessive forms were thy and thine, and its reflexive or emphatic
form was thyself <snip>" >>

I, thou, ye. Me, thee, you. 

I think it would be more logical, or at least rhyme better, if it were
"Me, thee, ye" and "I, thou, you". Especially if "thou" and "you"
rhymed in sound as well as in spelling.

Geoff quoted in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36868>:

<< could arguably be classified in the oblique case instead. >>

Oblique case? Is there also a tangential case?

Carol quoted in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36870>:

<< in Middle English you could only be the second-person plural
objective pronoun. >>

Can't I be the past imperfect instead?

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36907>:

<< calling an Apatasaurus a Brontosaurus >>

The common name of Felis domesticus is housecat; the common name of
Felis spp. is cat, and the common name of Apatasaurus spp. is
brontosaurus. Sometimes I wonder why people talking about dinosaurs or
garden plants are so content to call them by just the genus, when they
wouldn't be happy to call both a horse and a zebra an Equus.

Alla wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36880>:

<< Heee, seriously though did you think that it were DE or not? Three
men, I mean? Because since it was the middle of the war, I had no
doubt in my mind. But I guess it is opened to interpretation. >>

This is a forbidden 'I agree' post.

Kemper wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36915>:

<< The DEs weren't after the Muggles, they were after the cock-y teens. >>

My impression while I read it was that the DEs were after some witch
or wizard who lived up that alley, and the cocky teens were there to
ambush the DEs and save the person whom they were after. They should
have captured the DEs and brought them to be arrested instead of just
leaving them. 

Of course, my impression may have been biased by the experience that I
wrote a fanfic some years ago in which all four boys plus Lily
ambushed the DEs who were coming to kill a wizarding family. In MY
fic, they captured all the bad guys (except Lucius Malfoy got away
with singed hair) and they noticed that one of the bad guys was really
a good guy under Imperius, so they lifted the spell off him and sent
him to Hogwarts to get private lessons in DADA from Sukey Longbottom
(Augusta's daughter, but at the time I didn't know her name was Augusta).

In both cases, they were sent to intercept the planned attack because
one of Dumbledore's spies had warned Dumbledore of the plan.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36927>:

<< I'm wondering if, and my first impression was, that the T-shirts
had the Golden Snitch on it. The police office saw something golden
with wings and could only assume it was a bird. >>

I think this is an utterly brilliant suggestion, and quite possibly
correct. (Zara, I admired your before and after suggestion, too.)




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Sat Jun 14 06:26:50 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 02:26:50 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] OT: Problems with google mail?
In-Reply-To: <00a201c8cdb3$c2ffc040$464da8c0@miles>
References: <00a201c8cdb3$c2ffc040$464da8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <A95FA24599EF4346A0F050ECF5F2011D@FRODO>

You have to go into your settings and tell Gmail to allow POP3.  If you go
to the help, they have all the config instructions for you to configure your
email client.

Write me off list if you have a problem and I'll try to help.

Cheers,

Lee <n2fgc at arrl.net> or <mlee.n2fgc at gmail.com> 

[Miles wrote]:
| Hi,
| 
| I recently switched to google mail for my Yahoo lists. When I write a 
| message to the list, I see it on the Yahoo page (so it does 
| not get lost), 
| but I do not receive my own mail via my pop3 mailing 
| programme, but I do get 
| answers to my mails. I receive all messages as single mails 
| and never had 
| that problem before. Does anyone know this problem?
| 
| Miles 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Jun 14 09:03:47 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:03:47 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2vbf0+oou6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g301hj+q507@eGroups.com>

"seanmulligan2000" wrote:
> The Lemony Snicket Series of Unfortunate Event books have a similar 
> style as Harry Potter and they mix in tragedy with humor as well.


Potioncat:
Read the whole series, better yet, listen to Tim Curry read the books. 
The humor is very dry and there are sub-plots and on-going jokes that 
are very good.

I probably wouldn't have read it if I hadn't been reading it with my 
son. But at the end, I was glad we had persevered. I plan to read it 
again. 





From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Jun 14 15:39:46 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:39:46 -0000
Subject: Elvendork
Message-ID: <g30oo2+hhs5@eGroups.com>

I just read a sig on another list that quoted:

> "Men ever had, and ever will have leave, 
> To coin new words well suited to the age,  
> Words are like Leaves, some wither every year,  
> And every year a younger Race succeeds. "
>                                      -Horace  (65-8 BCE)

I love it!

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36888>:

<< But Wilberforce, Bathsheba, and Elvendork as the names of the three
men they were chasing? >>

I am very sorry that this reply seems to have fallen out of the reply
I posted last night.

Carol, it never occurred to me that those were supposed to be the
names of the people they were chasing. I immediately assumed, and
still believe, that they were just random annoying names that James
spouted off to sass the 'please-man'. Look at the way he volunteered
that 'Elvendork' is a name that can be used for a boy or a girl. He
wouldn't have said that if he was thinking 'those blokes' instead of
thinking 'silly names'. And he repeated at the end that Elvendork is a
unisex name. That shows that he was impressed with his (juvenile) wit
at making up such a name.






From bathbaby18 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 15:08:09 2008
From: bathbaby18 at yahoo.com (bathbaby18)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:08:09 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g2u2ri+njes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g30msp+in5e@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

> Magpie:
> Maybe check out Diana Wynn Jones's books. She has written a
> ton, but the Chrestomanci quartet involves magical schools.
> Perhaps especially The Lives of Christopher Chant and Charmed
> Life.

Could you give more background about the books? Thanks.

"bathbaby18"



From bathbaby18 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 15:10:56 2008
From: bathbaby18 at yahoo.com (bathbaby18)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:10:56 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <bf1.2d1eb240.35835039@aol.com>
Message-ID: <g30n20+3a42@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote:
> Sandy:
> Are you looking for young adult books or an adult series? If
> you are looking for an adult series I recommend The Dresden
> Files by Jim Butcher. There are currently ten books in the
> series and they are about another wizard also named Harry.
> The first book in the series is "Storm Front". I really like
> them.

Well I guess either young adult or adult. As long as the young
adult is not too kiddish. could you give more background on the
Dresden files? Thanks.

bathbaby18



From henlewsan at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 17:46:13 2008
From: henlewsan at yahoo.com (Henry Sanders)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Blood Journey
Message-ID: <476792.29585.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Well to start my chatter on off topic subjects, I am Henry 
Lewis Sanders and I live in Jackson, Tennessee. Mine and 
Terrie Leigh Relf's first novel was released for publication 
April2, 2008.

http://www.genremall.com/fictionr.htm#bloodjourney.

This is a bit erotic.

Thank you
Henry Lewis Sanders


      






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 21:50:54 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:50:54 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <031901c8ccee$7bb52150$464da8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <g31efu+kcno@eGroups.com>

<rest of post snipped>
> Miles, who still doesn't know about "it's me!" or "it's I!", though
the latter sounds wrong

Carol responds:
"It's I" (or "it is I," if you're going to be really formal) is
technically correct but no one says it. Fowler's ("The New Fowler's
Modern English Usage," third ed.) lists it as one of several instances
"in which *me* is now tending to usurp the territory that logically
belongs to the subject-pronoun *I.* . . . . *It's me* in an answer to
the question *Who is it?* is now standard [and] in answer to the
question *Who's there?" the natural answer is *Me* not *I.*"

However, Fowler's lists a number of other instances of *me* as
usurping the function of *I,* some of which are clearly ungrammatical,
such as "me and the teacher" or "me and the lads" used informally as
the subject of a sentence, so the section is clearly descriptive
rather than prescriptive. However, rest assured that if you say, "It's
me!" you'll sound casual and natural and no one will judge you for it.
If you say, "It's I!" you might well be classed as a grammar snob.

BTW, if you're ever unsure whether "who" or "whom" is correct, always
choose "who." "Who" used incorrectly could be passed off as mere
informality; "Whom" used incorrectly, as in, "Whom is speaking,
please?" is a solecism.

Carol, now wondering whether the subjective (or nominative) case is
going the way of the ablative, dative, and accusative cases, all of
which have already been "usurped" by the objective case





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 14 22:08:37 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:08:37 -0000
Subject: Link to short story that JKR wrote for charity is now on Leaky
In-Reply-To: <g2sj1i+1050m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g31fh5+10jvr@eGroups.com>

Alla wrote <snip>:
> 
>  I know what can be wrong with arrogance in general. And, I will not
surprised at all if at seventeen or eighteen James and Sirius indeed
already had quite a lot of that experience that caused them to be
arrogant or confident, depending how one looks at it.

Carol responds:
I'm not going to comment on their arrogance except to say that they
have a lot to learn and seem unchanged from the "arrogant little
berks" we saw risking the lives of the people of Hogsmeade in their
fifth year. I wouldn't call it confidence, more like insolence and the
belief in their own invincibility, but, oh, well. You like them and I
can't stand the little berks. :-)

However, with regard to age, James is certainly eighteen if he's out
of Hogwarts and a member of the Order of the Phoenix given his March
birthday. We're not given Sirius's birthdate, but chances are good
(five out of six, reduced to lowest terms from ten out of twelve
months) that he also turned eighteen before leaving Hogwarts. Snape
refers to him as being sixteen when he pulled the so-called Prank near
the end of their fifth year and JKR says on her website somewhere that
he was "about twenty-two" when James and Lily were killed, whereas
they were twenty-one. If "twenty-two" is correct, he must have had a
September or October birthday, making him one of the oldest students
in his year (like Hermione and Angelina in their respective years).  

At any rate, I think that eighteen is more than seventeen for both of
them.

Carol, who agrees with Alla that seventeen through nineteen qualifies
as "late teens" (JKR used that description for Barty Crouch Jr. at his
sentencing when Barty was about nineteen)




From davbot at comcast.net  Sun Jun 15 00:28:13 2008
From: davbot at comcast.net (nj39inmorris)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:28:13 -0000
Subject: So I am allowed to post a URL here?
Message-ID: <g31nmt+cu5h@eGroups.com>

Hello adult fans of Harry Potter,

My name is David and I organize a Harry Potter fan club here in 
Princeton, NJ. I was referred here by whoever manages HPforGrownUps. I 
wanted to get permission before I posted the group's URL here. I am 43 
years old and I want to meet other adults who are big fans of the boy 
(now teenage) wizard.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 15 04:43:06 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:43:06 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter/ Dresden files SPOILERS
In-Reply-To: <g30n20+3a42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g326kq+d873@eGroups.com>

> Well I guess either young adult or adult. As long as the young
> adult is not too kiddish. could you give more background on the
> Dresden files? Thanks.
> 
> bathbaby18
>


Alla:

Main character is a private investigator and the only wizard who is 
listed in the phone book of Chicago :) Openly working so to speak. 
Imagine mix of police work and complex magical stuff. Harry is a very 
sympathetic character and as the books progress there are a lot of 
characters one can root for. There are a lot of battle magic 
involved, but there is definitely plenty of character development too 
especially for Harry.

His parents are dead almost anyways, but my favorite character after 
Harry is his relative, but we only learn that they are related in 
book 6 :)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jun 15 06:35:52 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:35:52 -0000
Subject: Blood Journey
In-Reply-To: <476792.29585.qm@web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g32d88+pd59@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Henry Sanders <henlewsan at ...> wrote:
>
> Well to start my chatter on off topic subjects, I am Henry 
> Lewis Sanders and I live in Jackson, Tennessee. Mine and 
> Terrie Leigh Relf's first novel was released for publication 
> April2, 2008.
> 
> http://www.genremall.com/fictionr.htm#bloodjourney.
> 
> This is a bit erotic.
> 
> Thank you
> Henry Lewis Sanders

Geoff:
Well, I doubt whether what I read in the  the publicity blurb will 
tempt me away from discussing Harry and friends or replace 
LOTR in my affections.

However, each to his own....






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jun 15 14:08:40 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:08:40 -0000
Subject: JK Rowling pens a Harry Potter prequel / War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g31efu+kcno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g337p8+mdl5@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> <rest of post snipped>
> > Miles, who still doesn't know about "it's me!" or "it's I!", though
> the latter sounds wrong
> 
> Carol responds:
> "It's I" (or "it is I," if you're going to be really formal) is
> technically correct but no one says it. Fowler's ("The New Fowler's
> Modern English Usage," third ed.) lists it as one of several instances
> "in which *me* is now tending to usurp the territory that logically
> belongs to the subject-pronoun *I.* . . . . *It's me* in an answer to
> the question *Who is it?* is now standard [and] in answer to the
> question *Who's there?" the natural answer is *Me* not *I.*"

Geoff:
It's interesting that in several languages, the verb "to be" takes a 
nominative and yet this "it's me" crops up. In French, which, IIRC, 
had no case structure it's "c'est moi".  Funnily enough, I don't know 
what the German situation is; although I speak the language, i don't 
recall ever wanting that phrase! Perhaps Miles can oblige on that 
point?

It has been a linguistic arguing point for many years. When I was at 
grammar school in the late 1950s, one of the English teachers was 
writing a series of English textbooks and at one point in it, he used 
"It's me" and was promptly jumped on by the publishers saying 
that this was wrong. So they set up a trial and asked various 
members of the publishing staff to come to the chief editor's office 
and knock. When asked "Who's there?', they were to reply without 
using their name. In every case, the person involved replied "It's me". 
My English teacher won his point that it was accepted usage and it 
went into the book.






From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 15 17:40:51 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 15 Jun 2008 17:40:51 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/15/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1213551651.13.85132.m48@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 15, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20080615/349a11fd/attachment.html>

From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 15 19:16:10 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:16:10 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g30msp+in5e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33ppq+io1c@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "bathbaby18" <bathbaby18 at ...>
wrote:
> Could you give more background about the books? Thanks.
> 
> "bathbaby18"
>
Do you have access to the Web as well as to e-mail? Because Amazon.com
gives links to Editorial Reviews and Customer Reviews of all those
books, and popular series like Chrestomanci would have a LOT of
customer reviews, which I imagine would give you more information
about them than would a FEW posts. Or Google the title and see what
you find.




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 15 19:27:06 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:27:06 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g337p8+mdl5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33qea+kte3@eGroups.com>

Geoff Bannister wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36958>:

> It's interesting that in several languages, the verb "to be" takes a 
> nominative and yet this "it's me" crops up. In French, which, IIRC, 
> had no case structure it's "c'est moi".  

I hope someone can explain this in a way that I can understand,
because my friend Lee only explains it in ways that I don't
understand. To me, the cases of English pronouns work like in this
simple sentence:

[Subject is subjective] [verb] [object is objective].

Exempli gratia: It bit me! I admired him. She defeated you. Thou wast
deceived by them.

"To be" is a verb. The word before "is" is the subject. The word after
"is" is the object. So why is there this weird unnatural rule that the
object of "is" should be in the subjective case?

I believe that the valid rules of English grammar are the ones that
evolved from centuries of usage by natural English speakers, blessed
with a non-elite language that wasn't taught in school and therefore
didn't have intellectuals inventing new rules or grammar snobs trying
to enforce old ones ("Say 'give it him', not this vulgar ignorant
slang 'give it to him'!"). 

Is this weird rule about 'is' one of the valid-to-me rules, or was it
invented by someone? If it is one of them, what were the old-time
speakers *thinking" when they so spoke? 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Jun 15 20:02:07 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:02:07 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g33qea+kte3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g33sfv+av63@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Geoff Bannister wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36958>:
> 
> > It's interesting that in several languages, the verb "to be" takes a 
> > nominative and yet this "it's me" crops up. In French, which, IIRC, 
> > had no case structure it's "c'est moi".  
> 
> I hope someone can explain this in a way that I can understand,
> because my friend Lee only explains it in ways that I don't
> understand. To me, the cases of English pronouns work like in this
> simple sentence:
> 
> [Subject is subjective] [verb] [object is objective].
> 
> Exempli gratia: It bit me! I admired him. She defeated you. Thou wast
> deceived by them.
> 
> "To be" is a verb. The word before "is" is the subject. The word after
> "is" is the object. So why is there this weird unnatural rule that the
> object of "is" should be in the subjective case?

Geoff:
As I said, English is not the only language where the verb "to be" 
should take a nominative.

If I might take your example "She defeated you"...

"She" is the subject, the person or thing initiating the action. "You" 
is the person or thing on which the action is performed and is thus 
accusative. {You'll excuse me avoiding subjective and objective 
because I don't see these in the context of grammar. Carol does. :-)}

In a case like "I am a grocer", the subject "I" is NOT performing some 
sort of action such as "defeating" or "helping" on a different person. 
"I" and "the grocer" are one and the same person - the subject. Hence, 
it is quite valid for "to be" to take the nominative case after the verb.

To take a cases in other languages, consider Latin. The word for 
king in the nominative is "rex", in the accusative "regem". "I am" is 
"ego sum" - the "ego" is frequently omitted and "sum" suffices. To say 
"I am the king", you would write "(ego) sum rex" - NOT - (ego) sum 
regem".  In German, "I am the teacher" is "Ich bin der Lehrer" (nominative) - 
NOT - "Ich bin den Lehrer" (accusative).

Both the above for the reasons I gave in English.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer.






From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Sun Jun 15 23:04:29 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (Miles)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:04:29 +0200
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
References: <g33qea+kte3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007c01c8cf3c$2b642570$8ff5fea9@miles>

> Geoff:
> It's interesting that in several languages, the verb "to be" takes a
> nominative and yet this "it's me" crops up. In French, which, IIRC,
> had no case structure it's "c'est moi".  Funnily enough, I don't know
> what the German situation is; although I speak the language, i don't
> recall ever wanting that phrase! Perhaps Miles can oblige on that
> point?

Miles: (putting the above snip in this thread)
To find about the needed case in a German sentence, you simply ask a 
question to which you can answer with the respective sentence. "Dies ist 
Martins Buch." (This is Martin's book). You ask: "Wessen Buch ist das?" 
(Whose book is it?), and the interrogative pronoun indicates the case, here 
"Wessen" indicates genitive. And the other way around: "Wer ist da?" (Who is 
it?) - "Wer" indicates the nominative, so the answer must be "Ich bin es!" 
or usually shorter "Ich bins!".

Would it work the same way in English?

Catlady
> I believe that the valid rules of English grammar are the ones that
> evolved from centuries of usage by natural English speakers, blessed
> with a non-elite language that wasn't taught in school and therefore
> didn't have intellectuals inventing new rules or grammar snobs trying
> to enforce old ones ("Say 'give it him', not this vulgar ignorant
> slang 'give it to him'!").

Miles:
Now, this is a philosophical question. I would agree the "wrong" habits can 
become part of the correct usage of a language. Only artificial languages 
are logical, while all grown and living languages have illogical rules and 
irregularities.
But does that mean that there's no point in correcting "new" bad habits and 
to insist in using the valid rules? The truth lies in between, if you ask 
me.

Miles, who begins to understand the problems most English speakers have with 
learning German 




From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Jun 16 04:21:16 2008
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:21:16 -0000
Subject: Political statement over wrongful taxation in Pittsburgh
Message-ID: <g34pns+t75d@eGroups.com>




A statement I submitted to a local newpaper but I think it applies to 
many:

You know that no one ever thinks about the circumstance at hand until 
it directly affects them in their pocket. People who don't drink 
aren't likely to be concerned over this (absurd drink tax) matter 
anymore than they are over a person who is banned or penalized from 
smoking a cigarette. 

What these standby/unconcerned persons do not realize is that with 
every verdict that is introduced, sets a precedent to lead `them' 
forward in their quest to govern more specific sights
like
in the 
future
the very internet that collects us all to talk freely!!!

Very
Very!!! Soon this will be a place that we have to pay taxes on 
because we didn't fight the small taxation, or the one we didn't care 
enough about because it didn't affect us personally! 
  
The government Today aren't looking for the small fish, they just 
want to catch them so they can use them as bait (precedent) to get 
the bigger ones!!!!!!!!!!














From predigirl1 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 06:27:16 2008
From: predigirl1 at yahoo.com (Alex Hogan)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:27:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Blood Journey ,(Buffy)
In-Reply-To: <g32d88+pd59@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <71117.90242.qm@web63708.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Darn! I saw the word "blood", and though "Buffy, the Vampire Slayer" . The best show ever to be shown on TV. Intelligent, funny, scary, gripping, and your get to love the characters more as they grow in amazing ways throughout the series.Well, anything Joss Whedon does is perfection.

Alex Hogan



--- On Sun, 6/15/08, Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

From: Geoff Bannister <gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Blood Journey
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2008, 1:35 AM






--- In HPFGU-OTChatter@ yahoogroups. com, Henry Sanders <henlewsan at . ..> wrote:
>
> Well to start my chatter on off topic subjects, I am Henry 
> Lewis Sanders and I live in Jackson, Tennessee. Mine and 
> Terrie Leigh Relf's first novel was released for publication 
> April2, 2008.
> 
> http://www.genremal l.com/fictionr. htm#bloodjourney .
> 
> This is a bit erotic.
> 
> Thank you
> Henry Lewis Sanders

Geoff:
Well, I doubt whether what I read in the the publicity blurb will 
tempt me away from discussing Harry and friends or replace 
LOTR in my affections.

However, each to his own....

 














      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From danjerri at madisoncounty.net  Mon Jun 16 14:40:43 2008
From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (jerrichase)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:40:43 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g301hj+q507@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g35u1b+li37@eGroups.com>

Lots of interesting books have been suggested.  Some I liked and 
others I didn't.  It seems that everyone must make up their own mind.

Some that haven't been mentioned this thread, that I have seen:

Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy and his Prydain series.  The 
Prydain series (The Book of Three, Black Cauldron, etc) are coming of 
age books.  Westmark trilogy is something special, about in part, war 
and what it can force good people to do.

Patricia Wrede's Enchanted Forest books, Talking to Dragons, etc.  
Fun, fairy tale land set on it's head.  First book from POV of a 
young princess who runs away to live with drangons, next from a male 
POV, next from POV of an older woman, last one from the POV of the 
son of the princess from the first book.  She has written other good 
fantacy.

Inkheart by C. Funkie or Funke?  A great book, I especially loved the 
audiobook version.  I didn't care for the 2nd book as much, 
Inkspell.  The third is to come out sometime this year.  Special 
people can read characters into and/or out of books.

Tamora Pierce has several worlds and series of books for young 
people.  

Intended for older readers are the books by Mercedes Lackey.  The 500 
Kingdoms books are romantic fantasy for adults.  There is a series 
set in an alternative world with magic, all but one in England.  Fire 
Rose is the one set in that world in the U.S.  The Chicago Fire and 
SF earthquake are the result of magic gone wrong.  And the books set 
in and around Valdemar are wonderful!  I recommend starting with the 
first published trilogy, Arrows of the Queen, Arrows Flight, and 
Arrows Fall, published also in a three-in one volume called "Queen's 
Own".

Jerri




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 16:42:51 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:42:51 -0000
Subject: books like harry potter
In-Reply-To: <g35u1b+li37@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3656b+tuvu@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "jerrichase" <danjerri at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> Intended for older readers are the books by Mercedes Lackey.  The 500 
> Kingdoms books are romantic fantasy for adults.  There is a series 
> set in an alternative world with magic, all but one in England.  Fire 
> Rose is the one set in that world in the U.S.  The Chicago Fire and 
> SF earthquake are the result of magic gone wrong.  And the books set 
> in and around Valdemar are wonderful!  I recommend starting with the 
> first published trilogy, Arrows of the Queen, Arrows Flight, and 
> Arrows Fall, published also in a three-in one volume called "Queen's 
> Own".
>


Alla:

Yes, love all Valdemar books. Love some of her earlier remakes of the 
fairy tales. Firebird is marvelous IMO.

But as I mentioned before here, myself I lost all respect for Mercedes 
Lackey as a writer lately. As I said, I read A LOT of her works 
including some of her latest ones ( by that I mean the books that she 
published couple years ago, but I guess she published a lot after 
that). Therefore I believe I am qualified to make that statement. I 
believe that quality of her works went significantly down.

See, I do not buy that writer can produce high quality books three four 
times a year.

I am not even very happy if I see a new book from writer every year, to 
me two three years is normal interval, but three four every year?

I think it is more than making money, which I understand that writer 
cannot just sit down and wait till inspiration strikes, I think it is 
pure greediness and capitalizing on your name and publishing crap, 
hoping that your fanbase will buy anything.

Do I sound bitter? I am. But that's because I used to really love her 
books. Herald mage trilogy is on par with my most cherished books ever.

Obviously just my opinion.

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 18:10:41 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:10:41 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g33sfv+av63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36ab1+n3vi@eGroups.com>

Catlady wrote:
> > I hope someone can explain this in a way that I can understand,
because my friend Lee only explains it in ways that I don't
understand. To me, the cases of English pronouns work like in this
simple sentence:
> > 
> > [Subject is subjective] [verb] [object is objective].
> > 
> > Exempli gratia: It bit me! I admired him. She defeated you. Thou
wast deceived by them.
> > 
> > "To be" is a verb. The word before "is" is the subject. The word
after "is" is the object. So why is there this weird unnatural rule
that the object of "is" should be in the subjective case?

Carol responds:

Not all verbs are the same. Setting aside transitive and intransitive
verbs (those that do and those that don't take a direct object even
when they express action), some verbs are action verbs and some are
linking verbs.

"Bite" is an action verb. "Me," the direct object or receiver of the
action, is consequently in the objective case.

Ditto for "admired," which may not be a visible action but is still
performed by the subject ("she," in this instance) and received by the
direct object ("him").

"Thou was deceived by them" is a bit different because while "thou" is
still the subject and therefore in the nominative or subjective case,
the sentence is in the passive voice, so the *subject* is the receiver
of the action (being deceived) and the doer of the action ("they") is
conveyed through a prepositional phrase, "by them" ("them" is in the
objective case because it's the object of a preposition). Put it in
active voice and you have "They deceived thee," which fits your
pattern, subject/verb/direct object.

However, "is" and other forms of "to be" ("am," "are," "was," "were"
and, if you want to include archaic forms, "art," "wast," "wert")
don't express action and never take an object. They merely *link* the
subject to further information about itself: "Her name is Mary;" "She
is a pretty girl;" "She is married," etc. If what follows the verb is
a noun, it's called a predicate nominative because it *renames* the
subject ("nomen" means "name," as does "noun"). "Mary" renames "name":
"girl" renames "Mary"). If what follows is an adjective, it's called a
predicate adjective (for obvious reasons).

Here's a website (not Wikipedia!) that explains it all in an enjoyable
way, and even brings in words other than the "to be" verbs that can
function as linking verbs and therefore take the subjective rather
than the objective case:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/linkingverb.htm

Given the concept of linking verbs, BTW, you (generic "you") would
think that "it is I" would be the natural construction, with the
expletive "it" being the subject and "I" being a predicate nominative
(and therefore in the nominative aka subjective case). However,
linguistic development isn't always logical, and English doesn't
always follow its own rules, some of which (like the rules against
double negatives and double comparison) were imposed on English by
prescriptive grammarians attempting to make it logical. 

Anyway, "That was she" is technically correct (although very formal),
"that" being a demonstrative pronoun acting as the subject and "she"
being a predicate nominative. "It is I" is a bit trickier since "it"
is an expletive with no semantic meaning, only grammatical meaning (as
in "it is raining"), but the constructions are so similar that most
people wouldn't differentiate between them.

At any rate, "is" doesn't take an object. It takes a predicate
nominative or a predicate adjective or a similar construction. Nothing
*happens* to the noun or other word that follows a linking verb so it
can't be an object, direct or indirect. The verb merely *links* the
subject to a word or phrase that provides additional information about
the subject: "This post is confusing," for example, or "Today is the
sixteenth of June." 

Carol, fearing that she's muddied the waters rather than clearing them up




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 16 18:34:34 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:34:34 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g36ab1+n3vi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36bnq+jsfs@eGroups.com>

Carol:
> Anyway, "That was she" is technically correct (although very formal),
> "that" being a demonstrative pronoun acting as the subject and "she"
> being a predicate nominative. "It is I" is a bit trickier since "it"
> is an expletive with no semantic meaning, only grammatical meaning (as
> in "it is raining"), but the constructions are so similar that most
> people wouldn't differentiate between them.

Magpie:
Totally random, but everytime I hear phrases like this I remember one 
time years ago when an assistant from a publisher in England was 
calling to talk to me at my publisher. Now, I don't know what anybody 
else says, or whether it's a regional thing or a national thing or 
what, but when she called I gave what to me was the standard response 
to identify myself.

She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?

Me: This is she.

Only this was totally incomprehensible to her, and my mind shut down 
and refused to give me any alternatives. I have no idea if the phrase I 
used is commonly used and if so, where. It's the only thing I've ever 
said. So since I was sitting there in silence, confused, she said again:

She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?

Me: (more clearly) This is she.

There followed another awkward pause. Finally she said again:

She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?

And this time, since my brain still refused to supply me with the 
proper alternative:

Me: Hold on, I'll go get her.

*holds phone in hand for a few seconds, then puts it back to mouth*

Me: (trying to sound slightly different) This is Sister Magpie.

She: (thrilled) Hi! This is So and so!

-m




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 16 18:43:50 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:43:50 -0000
Subject: Phone grammar (was Re: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject)
In-Reply-To: <g36bnq+jsfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36c96+r47h@eGroups.com>

 
> Magpie:
> Totally random, but everytime I hear phrases like this I remember 
one 
> time years ago when an assistant from a publisher in England was 
> calling to talk to me at my publisher. Now, I don't know what 
anybody 
> else says, or whether it's a regional thing or a national thing or 
> what, but when she called I gave what to me was the standard 
response 
> to identify myself.
> 
> She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?
> 
> Me: This is she.
> 
> Only this was totally incomprehensible to her, and my mind shut 
down 
> and refused to give me any alternatives. I have no idea if the 
phrase I 
> used is commonly used and if so, where. It's the only thing I've 
ever 
> said. So since I was sitting there in silence, confused, she said 
again:
> 
> She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?
> 
> Me: (more clearly) This is she.
> 
> There followed another awkward pause. Finally she said again:
> 
> She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?
> 
> And this time, since my brain still refused to supply me with the 
> proper alternative:
> 
> Me: Hold on, I'll go get her.
> 
> *holds phone in hand for a few seconds, then puts it back to mouth*
> 
> Me: (trying to sound slightly different) This is Sister Magpie.
> 
> She: (thrilled) Hi! This is So and so!
> 
> -m


Potioncat:
I just couldn't snip that story, I was laughing too hard. Is it 
really, really true? I think you should send in to Reader's Digest 
and make some money. (Just be aware, it will put you on their 
outreach list forever.)

"This is she" is what I was taught. Whether it's grammar, or 
etiquette, I couldn't say. (My region would be Southern US, if that 
matters.)





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 16 18:54:08 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:54:08 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g36bnq+jsfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36csg+7oqh@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <sistermagpie at ...> wrote:

> Magpie:
> Totally random, but everytime I hear phrases like this I remember one 
> time years ago when an assistant from a publisher in England was 
> calling to talk to me at my publisher. Now, I don't know what anybody 
> else says, or whether it's a regional thing or a national thing or 
> what, but when she called I gave what to me was the standard response 
> to identify myself.
> 
> She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?
> 
> Me: This is she.

<snip>
 
> And this time, since my brain still refused to supply me with the 
> proper alternative:
> 
> Me: Hold on, I'll go get her.
> 
> *holds phone in hand for a few seconds, then puts it back to mouth*
> 
> Me: (trying to sound slightly different) This is Sister Magpie.
> 
> She: (thrilled) Hi! This is So and so!

Geoff:
Interestingly, if I lift the phone and someone says "May I speak to 
Geoff Bannister", the response I always use is, to  reply by saying 
"Speaking".




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Mon Jun 16 19:07:42 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:07:42 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g36csg+7oqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g36dlu+enbm@eGroups.com>

> Geoff:
> Interestingly, if I lift the phone and someone says "May I speak to 
> Geoff Bannister", the response I always use is, to  reply by saying 
> "Speaking".

Magpie:
Speaking! That was one of those obvious things my brain just wouldn't 
cough up in that moment!

-m




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Mon Jun 16 20:08:16 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:08:16 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Phone grammar (was Re: Grammatical Case (was:
 that long subject)
In-Reply-To: <g36c96+r47h@eGroups.com>
References: <g36bnq+jsfs@eGroups.com> <g36c96+r47h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <37E08C73FC494493B8B20270ADA4EEB2@FRODO>

| > Magpie:
| > She: May I speak to Sister Magpie, please?
| > 
| > Me: This is she.
| > 
| > Only this was totally incomprehensible to her, and my mind shut 
| down 
| > and refused to give me any alternatives. I have no idea if the 
| phrase I 
| > used is commonly used and if so, where. It's the only thing I've 
| ever 
| > said.
<Snip>

| 
| Potioncat:
| "This is she" is what I was taught. Whether it's grammar, or 
| etiquette, I couldn't say. (My region would be Southern US, if that 
| matters.)

[Lee]:
Hmm--never used that phrase.  If someone asks for me, I say "Speaking" when
I am in an office situation and, at home, I either use "Speaking" or "Yes,
this is Lee."

When I worked at Bell Labs, their protocol was Office-Title followed by
Person's Name, e.g., "Office Support, Lee Storm."  No "Good morning" or
anything like that...just place and name.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm a-stickin' to it. :-)

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 16 20:11:21 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:11:21 +0800
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g36c96+r47h@eGroups.com>
References: <g36c96+r47h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4856C8E9.1060409@yahoo.com>

Since this grammar discussion seems to branching further out, I thought 
I'd toss out a point that has cropped up for me a number of times.

The question is subject-verb agreement when there is a compound subject.

"Either he or I ____ going."

What's the proper form of "be" to use here?

I'd been taught that the only correct solution is to rewrite the 
sentence: "Either he is going or I am." But here in Taiwan, where I've 
been teaching English for many years, all the textbooks insist on a 
nearer-subject rule: the verb must agree with the nearer of the 
subjects. It's taught, it's tested, and woe be to anyone who insists 
otherwise. Yet "Either he or I am going" just rubs my native intuition 
all the wrong ways.

And Carol, I'm still working on my reply to your last post to me on 
case. I really appreciated the quotes you found, and hope to find time 
to finish my reply before the subject goes completely stale.

CJ





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Jun 17 23:55:35 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:55:35 -0000
Subject: test e-mail
Message-ID: <g39itn+l2ne@eGroups.com>

Just to see if Yahoo is ok

Alla




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 18 00:50:13 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <g39itn+l2ne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <74183.59309.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Alla:

> Just to see if Yahoo is ok
> 
Sheryll:

I think there are problems with some groups. Even as slow as things are on Main these days, 2 posts since midnight is unusual. And there are groups that I can't get into.

Sheryll


      __________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 

http://www.flickr.com/gift/



From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed Jun 18 00:56:54 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm(God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:56:54 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <g39itn+l2ne@eGroups.com>
References: <g39itn+l2ne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <5753BB7269A34B749AEE87263588098C@FRODO>

| Just to see if Yahoo is ok
| 
| Alla

[Lee]:
Yeah, it's doing fine.  I can't say the same for my cable!  Lost service
last night with a serious storm.  We got service back, but my cable looks
like a very sick snake dangling off the pole and barely clinging to my
house.  They'd better fix that quick or someone might end up damaged; the
cable is at a perfect height for tripping someone who's not looking.

Cheers,

Lee :-)
(And her sick snake...Slytherin would not be proud!)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 18 01:05:33 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:05:33 -0000
Subject: test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <74183.59309.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g39n0t+5joc@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> 
> > Just to see if Yahoo is ok
> > 
> Sheryll:
> 
> I think there are problems with some groups. Even as slow as things 
are on Main these days, 2 posts since midnight is unusual. And there 
are groups that I can't get into.
> 


Alla:

Right, there is a group I can't get into myself. :)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun 18 06:34:58 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:34:58 -0000
Subject: test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <74183.59309.qm@web63402.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3aaai+ache@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Sheryll Townsend <s_ings at ...> wrote:
>
> Alla:
> 
> > Just to see if Yahoo is ok
> > 
> Sheryll:
> 
> I think there are problems with some groups. Even as slow as things are on Main these 
days, 2 posts since midnight is unusual. And there are groups that I can't get into.
> 
> Sheryll
> 

Geoff:
Well, my Main list is showing nothing since 18:38 GMT yesterday 
and it's now 07:33 BST (06:33 GMT) now.
:-(






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Jun 18 06:51:48 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:51:48 -0000
Subject: test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <g3aaai+ache@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3aba4+epe3@eGroups.com>

 
> Geoff:
> Well, my Main list is showing nothing since 18:38 GMT yesterday 
> and it's now 07:33 BST (06:33 GMT) now.
> :-(
>

Potioncat:
It's 2:50 AM and I just posted on Main. the last post was around 1 PM 
yesterday. So it may just be low activity. We need to come up with a 
new topic for Geoff. I know how much he enjoys Snape threads. ;-)






From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Jun 18 11:31:58 2008
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <g39n0t+5joc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <717688.43380.qm@web63407.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

> > Alla:
> > 
> > > Just to see if Yahoo is ok
> > > 
> > Sheryll:
> > 
> > I think there are problems with some groups. Even as
> slow as things 
> are on Main these days, 2 posts since midnight is unusual.
> And there 
> are groups that I can't get into.
> > 
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Right, there is a group I can't get into myself. :)
> 
Sheryll again:

Yup, same one I can't get into. 

*kicks Yahoo!mort*

Sheryll


      __________________________________________________________________
Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Jun 18 11:37:46 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:37:46 -0000
Subject: test e-mail
In-Reply-To: <g3aba4+epe3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3as2a+65fb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Geoff:
> > Well, my Main list is showing nothing since 18:38 GMT yesterday 
> > and it's now 07:33 BST (06:33 GMT) now.
> > :-(
> >
> 
> Potioncat:
> It's 2:50 AM and I just posted on Main. the last post was around 1 PM 
> yesterday. So it may just be low activity. We need to come up with a 
> new topic for Geoff. I know how much he enjoys Snape threads. ;-)

Geoff:
Yeah. It's like banging your head on a wall. It's so nice when you stop.
:-)

12:36PM BST here.






From irishwynch at aol.com  Wed Jun 18 17:20:12 2008
From: irishwynch at aol.com (irishwynch at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:20:12 EDT
Subject: Off List Request
Message-ID: <bfe.3d6dc116.358a9dcc@aol.com>

How does one removed themselves from this list?



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From bumbledor at comcast.net  Wed Jun 18 20:54:33 2008
From: bumbledor at comcast.net (bumbledor)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:54:33 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Off List Request
References: <bfe.3d6dc116.358a9dcc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <003d01c8d185$833715a0$6401a8c0@bumbledor>

Just read every message to the very bottom and you will see.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <irishwynch at aol.com>
To: <HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Off List Request


> How does one removed themselves from this list?
> 


HINT HINT HINT  VVVVVVVVV
> 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 00:30:09 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:30:09 -0000
Subject: Help  please
Message-ID: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>

I need help creating questions on the topic of pop-culture. Questions 
could be about the books, actors, music. They should be fun and well, 
moderate difficulty.

I was told that if I want to do books then for example not to pick War 
and peace for questions, hehe.

Help guys :), it is for the game and we are allowed and encouraged to 
ask for help actually.

Thanks so much!

Alla, who only came up with two so far and who needs ten at minimum.




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 01:11:25 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:11:25 -0000
Subject: Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3cbnt+dtin@eGroups.com>

> Alla:
> I need help creating questions on the topic of pop-culture. 
> Questions could be about the books, actors, music. They 
> should be fun and well, moderate difficulty.

Goddlefrood:

What's the target audience for these question?

> Alla:
> I was told that if I want to do books then for example not to 
> pick War and peace for questions, hehe.

Goddlefrood:

Popular meaning widely known or well known? ;-) As in: 'he was 
widely read, but not well read'.

Back in an hour or so.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 01:13:55 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:13:55 -0000
Subject: Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3cbnt+dtin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3cbsj+7hr@eGroups.com>

> > Alla:
> > I need help creating questions on the topic of pop-culture. 
> > Questions could be about the books, actors, music. They 
> > should be fun and well, moderate difficulty.
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> What's the target audience for these question?


Alla:

Oh lawyers, but lawyers who do not want to think too hard on 
Saturday :)

 
> > Alla:
> > I was told that if I want to do books then for example not to 
> > pick War and peace for questions, hehe.
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Popular meaning widely known or well known? ;-) As in: 'he was 
> widely read, but not well read'.
> 
> Back in an hour or so.
>

Alla:

Tee hee, widely known I say. You know, something not too complicated, 
but not extra easy either. Just enough to have fun.




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Jun 19 01:51:18 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:51:18 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
References: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <90A14259EC1744A8953A2019D3F912DF@FRODO>

Try this for D. J. MacHale's Pendragon books:

Bobby travels through time and space,
But battles the same guy in every place.
The guy is called "Saint," but not to be trusted;
The dog bred with his name would be disgusted!
Who is this adversary?

Cheers,

Lee :-)
(Who'll give you the answer off list!) <Evil Grin>

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 02:56:34 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:56:34 -0000
Subject: Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3cbsj+7hr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3cht2+cokv@eGroups.com>

> > Goddlefrood:
> > What's the target audience for these question?
 
> Alla:
> Oh lawyers, but lawyers who do not want to think too hard on 
> Saturday :)

Goddlefrood:

Ah, that kind of lawyer, but then as we know lawyers work hard 
all the time and know everything, so this could be tricky.

> Alla:
 
> You know, something not too complicated, but not extra easy 
> either. Just enough to have fun.

Goddlefrood:

So: who was the villain in the Harry Potter series?, would 
be out then. Answers on a postcard to P.O. Box 5905809109885, 
Nasiliva, Tailevu, Fiji.

There's plenty of trivia sites around, such as www.funtrivia.com. 
Here's some from me:

Who plays Pirelli in Sweeney Todd?

What do the films There Might be Blood and The Hive have in 
common?

Would you prefer to be like John Grisham rather than retain 
your current job?

Where would you go to take tea in a teacup?

The final confrontation in Caleb Carr's The Alienist takes 
place where?

What year did the Dodgers leave Brooklyn?

A few small suggestions, some with a NY flavour.

Goddlefrood






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 05:09:02 2008
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:09:02 -0000
Subject: Off List Request
In-Reply-To: <bfe.3d6dc116.358a9dcc@aol.com>
Message-ID: <g3cple+loiq@eGroups.com>

---  irishwynch at ... wrote:
>
> How does one removed themselves from this list?
> 
> 

There is really no need to remove yourself from the list. If
you want to stop receiving emails, then just go into your 
group account settings and turn email off. Actually, I think
you set it to read the posts on the web.

That way, if at some point in the future you want to come back,
you can always just go to the group webpage, and read and 
respond to emails there.

Personally, I hate getting that constant flood of email, so
in the many years of being involved in these groups, I've
never gotten an email. I always read at the group website.

Steve/bboyminn






From n2fgc at arrl.net  Thu Jun 19 14:21:37 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:21:37 -0400
Subject: My Turn To Test
Message-ID: <B5D8CFF251104E169FACFE8752CAD950@FRODO>

I've been doodling with email addresses, so if I'm bouncing, I hope one of
the elves will touch base with me at:
<n2fgc at optonline.net> or
<mlee.n2fgc at gmail.com> and we can try to straighten this out.  All of my
addresses are listed with Yahoo, but who knows.

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 19:13:42 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:13:42 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <4856C8E9.1060409@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>

CJ wrote:
> Since this grammar discussion seems to branching further out, I
thought I'd toss out a point that has cropped up for me a number of times.
> 
> The question is subject-verb agreement when there is a compound subject.
> 
> "Either he or I ____ going."
> 
> What's the proper form of "be" to use here?
> 
> I'd been taught that the only correct solution is to rewrite the 
sentence: "Either he is going or I am." But here in Taiwan, where I've
been teaching English for many years, all the textbooks insist on a 
nearer-subject rule: the verb must agree with the nearer of the 
subjects. It's taught, it's tested, and woe be to anyone who insists 
otherwise. Yet "Either he or I am going" just rubs my native intuition
all the wrong ways.
> 
> And Carol, I'm still working on my reply to your last post to me on
case. I really appreciated the quotes you found, and hope to find time
to finish my reply before the subject goes completely stale.
> 
Carol responds:

I'm glad you appreciated the quotes. It took me a lot of time to find
and copy them (and also persuaded me that I need to arm myself with a
more up-to-date English handbook!

You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the nearest
noun or pronoun. However, I also agree that "Either he or I am going"
sounds ridiculous, and "Either he or I is going" is not only equally
ridiculous but incorrect.

Your instinct is correct: the solution when you're confronted by an
ugly or awkward construction should always be to rephrase it. In this
case, I, too, would write, "Either he is going or I am."
Alternatively, you could say, "Either he or I will go," avoiding the
"to be" verb altogether. And you can tell your friends (or students or
supervisors) that an American copyeditor and former English teacher
with a PhD in English told you so.

Carol, looking forward to your post on case




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 19:15:18 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:15:18 -0000
Subject: Grammatical Case (was: that long subject) War of Roses/Holmes?Figg/Walpurga
In-Reply-To: <g36dlu+enbm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3eb86+v991@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie"
<sistermagpie at ...> wrote:
>
> > Geoff:
> > Interestingly, if I lift the phone and someone says "May I speak to 
> > Geoff Bannister", the response I always use is, to  reply by saying 
> > "Speaking".
> 
> Magpie:
> Speaking! That was one of those obvious things my brain just wouldn't 
> cough up in that moment!
> 
> -m
>
Carol responds:
Or you could just say, "This is Magpie."

Carol, who also responds with "Speaking" most of the time




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 19:22:03 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:22:03 -0000
Subject: Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ebkr+g4ni@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> I need help creating questions on the topic of pop-culture. Questions 
> could be about the books, actors, music. They should be fun and well, 
> moderate difficulty.
> 
> I was told that if I want to do books then for example not to pick
War and peace for questions, hehe.
> 
> Help guys :), it is for the game and we are allowed and encouraged
to ask for help actually.
> 
> Thanks so much!
> 
> Alla, who only came up with two so far and who needs ten at minimum.
>
Carol responds:

What form of questions? Multiple-choice with four possible responses,
as in Trivial Pursuit? Or open-ended with no choices, as in "Cash Cab"?

Carol, intrigued but confused






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 19:33:50 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:33:50 -0000
Subject: Off List Request
In-Reply-To: <g3cple+loiq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ecau+o1lv@eGroups.com>

irishwynch@ wrote:
> >
> > How does one removed themselves from this list?
> > 
bboyminn wrote:
> There is really no need to remove yourself from the list. If you
want to stop receiving emails, then just go into your group account
settings and turn email off. Actually, I think you set it to read the
posts on the web.
> 
> That way, if at some point in the future you want to come back, you
can always just go to the group webpage, and read and respond to
emails there.
> 
> Personally, I hate getting that constant flood of email, so in the
many years of being involved in these groups, I've never gotten an
email. I always read at the group website.
> 
Carol responds:

I agree with Steve that "No e-mail" (or "Special Notices Only") is the
best way to avoid cluttering your inbox with e-mail from *any* Yahoo
group. However, it you really want to leave the group, just click the
"Edit Membership" link and then click "Leave Group" in the lower
right-hand corner of the box.

Carol, who thinks there should be a "Leave Group" link right on the
page, but it's not *quite* that simple




From d2dMiles at googlemail.com  Thu Jun 19 22:10:07 2008
From: d2dMiles at googlemail.com (Miles)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:10:07 +0200
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
References: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c8d259$3ccd50f0$464da8c0@miles>

Carol:
> You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the nearest
> noun or pronoun. However, I also agree that "Either he or I am going"
> sounds ridiculous, and "Either he or I is going" is not only equally
> ridiculous but incorrect.

Miles:
May I add something that I feel to be similar? It's from the PS movie, in 
the first flying lesson Madam Hooch says:
"I see a single broom in the air, the ONE riding it will find THEMSELVES out 
of Hogwarts before THEY can say 'Quidditch'!"

Doesn't it feel odd for a native speaker to switch to plural, although the 
sentence starts addressing single persons? I asked a native speaker who 
assured me that the sentence is correct, because both male and female 
persons are addressed.

Now, this is a tricky situation in all languages that know the distinction 
male/female (so most probably all languages in the world). The French would 
use the male form as long as at least one male person is involved, in German 
the "neutral" grammatical phrase would be the male one. Recently, German 
speakers would try to include both sexes, for example with an 'oder' (or), 
which quite often is not really elegant.

Would this be a sentence that ought to be rephrased to be neutral concerning 
sex (gender)?

Miles, becoming interested in grammatical structures quite late in his life 
;) 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Jun 19 22:26:12 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:26:12 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <003f01c8d259$3ccd50f0$464da8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <g3eme4+r2a2@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Miles <d2dMiles at ...> wrote:

Miles:
> May I add something that I feel to be similar? It's from the PS movie, in 
> the first flying lesson Madam Hooch says:
> "I see a single broom in the air, the ONE riding it will find THEMSELVES out 
> of Hogwarts before THEY can say 'Quidditch'!"
> 
> Doesn't it feel odd for a native speaker to switch to plural, although the 
> sentence starts addressing single persons? I asked a native speaker who 
> assured me that the sentence is correct, because both male and female 
> persons are addressed.

Geoff:
Sounds as if your native speaker is an advocate of this wretched PC English 
whereby you can't use "he" to represent a unisex situation. This gives rise 
to such cumbersome usage as "chairperson" or the even uglier "chair". 

And, as you suggest, it leads to this peculiarity of switching to plural forms. 
In certain situations, you can use "one" in a generalising comment, rather as 
the Germans have "man" (to the non-German this is not the same as "Mann"). 
For example, "To go to London, one could use the train" but this is a different 
context to the one Madam Hooch uses.

It's just another example of the way in which we are expected to use 
convoluted English so that there is absolutely no chance of offending 
someone's sensibilities.

Taking Madam Hooch's comment, I might have put it as: 
"I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will be out of Hogwarts 
before he or she can say 'Quidditch'!"

Old-fashioned, non-PC? Maybe. But I prefer the more accurate grammar.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Jun 19 23:56:54 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:56:54 -0000
Subject: Help  please
In-Reply-To: <g3ebkr+g4ni@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ero6+c2r3@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
> 
> What form of questions? Multiple-choice with four possible 
responses,
> as in Trivial Pursuit? Or open-ended with no choices, as in "Cash 
Cab"?
> 
> Carol, intrigued but confused
>


Alla:

Oh no multiple choice, no, open-ended please. We will be taking 
questions out of the hat :) 

Lee and Gavin thank you, Gavin I think question about Villain in 
Harry Potter series will be perfect actually :)

None of my girlfriends as far as I know read the books and one 
watches the movies only.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Jun 20 00:39:10 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:39:10 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eme4+r2a2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3eu7e+e0f5@eGroups.com>

 "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
 
> Taking Madam Hooch's comment, I might have put it as: 
> "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will be out 
of Hogwarts 
> before he or she can say 'Quidditch'!"
> 
> Old-fashioned, non-PC? Maybe. But I prefer the more accurate 
grammar.

Potioncat:
I'm older-fashioned. 

I prefer "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will 
be out of Hogwarts before he can say 'Quidditch'!"

Just because I can't stand 'he or she'. I do sort of like the trend 
in paranting magazines to alternate between  he and she. But I would 
be quite content with the nonspecific 'he' to go along with the 
generic 'you'.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Jun 20 06:33:55 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 06:33:55 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eu7e+e0f5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3fj0j+m4eb@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
>  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10@> wrote:
>  
> > Taking Madam Hooch's comment, I might have put it as: 
> > "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will be out 
> of Hogwarts 
> > before he or she can say 'Quidditch'!"
> > 
> > Old-fashioned, non-PC? Maybe. But I prefer the more accurate 
> grammar.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'm older-fashioned. 
> 
> I prefer "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will 
> be out of Hogwarts before he can say 'Quidditch'!"
> 
> Just because I can't stand 'he or she'. I do sort of like the trend 
> in paranting magazines to alternate between  he and she. But I would 
> be quite content with the nonspecific 'he' to go along with the 
> generic 'you'.

Geoff:
I would agree but since I sometimes get involved with preparing reports 
etc., I suppose I have to make a tip of the hat towards this. 

But, as in my example above, one can reduce the number of occasions 
where one has to face the problem, can't one?
:-)






From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 09:52:36 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:52:36 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eme4+r2a2@eGroups.com>
References: <g3eme4+r2a2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <485B7DE4.9080105@yahoo.com>

Geoff:
Sounds as if your native speaker is an advocate of this wretched PC English
....
And, as you suggest, it leads to this peculiarity of switching to plural 
forms.

CJ (Now):
Don't have time to look it up, but I was surprised, contrary to my 
assumption that it was a PC thing, to see the singular "them" cropping 
up in English texts much earlier than I expected, including one or two 
nineteenth century texts.

When I get home from work I'll try to find the references.

CJ




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 09:55:04 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:55:04 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>
References: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <485B7E78.1060506@yahoo.com>

CJ wrote:
"Either he or I ____ going."

Carol responds:
I'm glad you appreciated the quotes. It took me a lot of time to find 
and copy them

CJ (Now):
Just very quickly, it confirmed my suspicions that the objective case 
paradigm was relatively recently introduced. The fact that the author of 
your quote felt the need to make his argument at all shows that at the 
time he was writing (1878) it was not so well entrenched that its 
defenders didn't still feel compelled to defend it.

CJ




From sistermagpie at earthlink.net  Fri Jun 20 15:04:26 2008
From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:04:26 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eme4+r2a2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3ggtq+g7u4@eGroups.com>

> Miles:
> > May I add something that I feel to be similar? It's from the PS 
movie, in 
> > the first flying lesson Madam Hooch says:
> > "I see a single broom in the air, the ONE riding it will find 
THEMSELVES out 
> > of Hogwarts before THEY can say 'Quidditch'!"
> > 
> > Doesn't it feel odd for a native speaker to switch to plural, 
although the 
> > sentence starts addressing single persons? I asked a native 
speaker who 
> > assured me that the sentence is correct, because both male and 
female 
> > persons are addressed.
> 
> Geoff:
> Sounds as if your native speaker is an advocate of this wretched PC 
English 
> whereby you can't use "he" to represent a unisex situation. This 
gives rise 
> to such cumbersome usage as "chairperson" or the even 
uglier "chair". 

Magpie:
Perhaps JKR (the native speaker here) just naturally used "they" 
because Hootch was addressing a group of people in front of her so 
wasn't thinking of it as plural. In that situation, speaking to a 
class full of children, saying "he" could easily come across as her 
assuming only a boy would be doing this, so her use of "they" makes 
more sense. She's talking to 11 year olds in the 90s who wouldn't 
find it odd that somebody didn't say "he." "They" often sounds wrong 
to me because I must have been taught along the way to not use it, so 
I use "he or she" or "one." It doesn't feel PC to me so much as 
accurate. Why would I say he when I might mean someone female? I also 
don't find "chair" particularly ugly. Some words sound more gendered 
so I pick the one that means what I'm saying. 

When I was in college if the person was talking about a hypothetical 
situation they always used "she." But to me, I don't assume that 
using a more neutral term has to do with people being hyper-
sensitive. It just seems the more obvious term. I suspect the use 
of "he" pretty much was based on assuming an actual male and 
considering men more important. 

-m 





From alexisnguyen at gmail.com  Fri Jun 20 18:47:42 2008
From: alexisnguyen at gmail.com (P. Alexis Nguyen)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:47:42 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Help please
In-Reply-To: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
References: <g3c9ah+qjte@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <b6e131bf0806201147v20577ea7q53fe9e5ec6ea0dcf@mail.gmail.com>

Alla:
> I need help creating questions on the topic of pop-culture. Questions
> could be about the books, actors, music. They should be fun and well,
> moderate difficulty.

How about recent movies?  Something along the lines of "who plays the
villainess in the recent Indiana Jones movie" or "name all four
actress from Sex and the City" or "name two other movies that
prominently feature the main actor in Iron Man" are moderately easy
(or hard, depending on your point of view) but accessible even for
those who don't know the answer.  (I mean, there aren't people in
movie-going cultures who haven't heard of Indiana Jones ... right?)

Or maybe TV?  Recent winner of Dancing with the Stars?  Name of the
last Bachelor?  (Actually, I don't know that one.)  Plot of the last
season of Lost?  (Okay, I don't know that one, either.)

With music, maybe you can do a "Don't Forget the Lyrics" type thing?
Sing the chorus to a Top 40s song.  Hum the first few bars of the
Brandenburg Concerto No. 3.  Something like that?

I think, with pop culture, it's difficult to move beyond movies, tv,
and music (and still keep things accessible).  With the exception of
things like Harry Potter, just what is a "pop culture" book?  I mean,
I think romance novels and NY Times best sellers and cite the millions
who read those ... but other than the romance novel (of which very few
people I know read), I don't read any other NY Times best sellers, and
many I know don't.  (Actually, I don't get that.  Someone, many
someones, is reading these books.  Why don't I know any of them???)

~Ali



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 19:04:08 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:04:08 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eu7e+e0f5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3guv8+42qf@eGroups.com>

Geoff Bannister wrote:
>  
> > Taking Madam Hooch's comment, I might have put it as: 
> > "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will be out
of Hogwarts before he or she can say 'Quidditch'!"
> > 
> > Old-fashioned, non-PC? Maybe. But I prefer the more accurate 
> grammar.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'm older-fashioned. 
> 
> I prefer "I see a single broom in the air, the person riding it will
be out of Hogwarts before he can say 'Quidditch'!"
> 
> Just because I can't stand 'he or she'. I do sort of like the trend
in paranting magazines to alternate between  he and she. But I would
be quite content with the nonspecific 'he' to go along with the
generic 'you'.

Carol responds:

As an editor, I often have to reconstruct sentences so that they're
both grammatically correct and politically correct (many publishing
houses and style manuals have policies that discourage sexist
diction). I don't mind an occasional "he or she," but it's rather like
"one": Once one uses "one," one is stuck with "one," and I for one
happen to hate that particular pronoun (often a euphemism for "I," as
if "I" required a euphemism). Whenever possible, I try to rephrase the
sentence so that the referent (the noun referred to by the pronoun) is
plural. I might allow a "they" referring to a singular noun in
*dialogue*, depending on who is speaking, but I'd rather have an
ostensibly sexist generic "he" than a misused "they" in the narrative
portion of a novel (unless the narrator is supposed to be uneducated,
a la Huckleberry Finn) or the text of a nonfiction work.

With regard to Madam Hooch's sentence, I much prefer the original
version, "You leave those brooms where they are or you'll be out of
Hogwarts before you can say 'Quidditch'" (SS Am. ed. 147), which
solves the problem nicely, or, rather, avoids it altogether.

Carol, wondering what Madam Hooch thought of having her threat
completely undermined by Professor McGonagall, who rewarded Harry for
breaking her rule by making him the Gryffindor Seeker





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 19:30:41 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:30:41 -0000
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0806201147v20577ea7q53fe9e5ec6ea0dcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3h0h1+iedj@eGroups.com>

Ali wrote:
><snip>
> With music, maybe you can do a "Don't Forget the Lyrics" type thing?
Sing the chorus to a Top 40s song.  Hum the first few bars of the
Brandenburg Concerto No. 3.  Something like that?

Carol responds:

I was thinking that the questions would be written on a card, with the
answers on the back (as in Trivial Pursuit). It would be rather hard
to do that for "a few bars of the Brandenburg Concerto No. 3" or any
other piece of music. Sure, someone could copy the notes from a piece
of music in the public domain off the Internet and paste them onto the
back of the card, but unless the other players could sightread music
or were already familiar with the concerto, it would be hard to know
whether the hummed bars were "correct."

Similarly, I snipped the bit about the plot of the last "Lost"
episode, but how could a plot synopsis fit on a card (assumint that
Alla has that method in mind) and how much leeway would be allowed
between the official answer and the player's answer? I think that
simple answers (the title of a work, the name of an author or a
character or a place) would be much better than detailed answers that
could vary from the answer as written.

Ali: 
> I think, with pop culture, it's difficult to move beyond movies, tv,
and music (and still keep things accessible).  With the exception of
> things like Harry Potter, just what is a "pop culture" book? <snip>

Carol responds:

We could add videogames: "In the Super Mario Brothers games, what is
the name of Mario's brother [or the princess or the villain]?"

Also, I think pop culture includes the names of landmarks, national
parks, and other famous places: "Name the four U.S. presidents whose
faces are carved into Mount Rushmore." Everyone has also heard of,
say, the Eiffel Tower, Buckingham Palace, and the Golden Gate Bridge.

As for books, surely certain classic works, especially children's
classics such as "Little Women," "Treasure Island," and the Alice
books are familiar to most people--or were when I was young! Quick,
now: What is the name of the youngest March sister in "Little Women"?

Famous people who aren't authors, actors, or singers could also be
included--sports figures, politicians, reformers, etc. Every American
has heard of Helen Keller and Babe Ruth; every Englishperson (I did
that on purpose for Geoff!) has heard, I hope, of William the Conqueror.

By the way, Alla, do the questions have to be worded as questions as
in my first example, or is the "Name the _______" format of my second
example okay?

Carol, who could not have answered a single question that Ali proposed!




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 20:24:20 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:24:20 -0000
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <g3h0h1+iedj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3h3ll+5d06@eGroups.com>

> Carol responds:
<SNIP>
I think that
> simple answers (the title of a work, the name of an author or a
> character or a place) would be much better than detailed answers 
that
> could vary from the answer as written.

Alla:

Yes, simple answers absolutely. Questions will be on the piece of 
paper.

Ali, I am adopting Sex and the city question. Thanks :)


> Ali: 
> > I think, with pop culture, it's difficult to move beyond movies, 
tv,
> and music (and still keep things accessible).  With the exception of
> > things like Harry Potter, just what is a "pop culture" book? 
<snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> We could add videogames: "In the Super Mario Brothers games, what is
> the name of Mario's brother [or the princess or the villain]?"

Alla:

Nah, they do not do videogames :)

 
> Also, I think pop culture includes the names of landmarks, national
> parks, and other famous places: "Name the four U.S. presidents whose
> faces are carved into Mount Rushmore." Everyone has also heard of,
> say, the Eiffel Tower, Buckingham Palace, and the Golden Gate 
Bridge.

Alla:

Oh I take those thanks.

 
> As for books, surely certain classic works, especially children's
> classics such as "Little Women," "Treasure Island," and the Alice
> books are familiar to most people--or were when I was young! Quick,
> now: What is the name of the youngest March sister in "Little 
Women"?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Amy?

 
> By the way, Alla, do the questions have to be worded as questions as
> in my first example, or is the "Name the _______" format of my 
second
> example okay?
> 
> Carol, who could not have answered a single question that Ali 
proposed!
>


Alla:

Both formats are fine. Thanks guys.




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Fri Jun 20 20:39:00 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:39:00 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>
References: <g3eb56+abpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <485C1564.3050508@yahoo.com>

CJ wrote:
"Either he or I ____ going."

Carol:
You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the nearest
noun or pronoun.

CJ (Now):
This is not a rule I'd ever heard -- let alone been taught -- until 
recently. As I said, I was taught to rewrite *because* there was no 
solution.

I've the feeling (admittedly not based on much) that the nearer-subject 
rule is one of those inventions of grammarians who can't stand the fact 
that there's no solution and take it upon themselves to invent one.


CJ




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 00:33:58 2008
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:33:58 -0000
Subject: Help please
In-Reply-To: <b6e131bf0806201147v20577ea7q53fe9e5ec6ea0dcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <g3hi9m+119k@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "P. Alexis Nguyen"
<alexisnguyen at ...> wrote:


> With the exception of things like Harry Potter, just what is 
> a "pop culture" book?  


Maybe a "pop culture" book is a book that you don't really need to
read to know its contents? This book is talked about so much (whether
it deserves this much attention or not is another question :-)) that
you can't help but to hear at least something about it. For example, I
didn't read "The Da Vinci Code" (and didn't watch the movie), but I
know perfectly well what this book is about, because of all that buzz
around it. It's just harder for books to become this familiar to
everyone, because they don't run trailers for books on TV every five
minutes, like for movies :-).

It's the same thing with books like with TV and movies, I guess. Take
your other examples - I didn't watch neither the last "Indiana Jones",
nor "Sex and the City", but I know who plays the villainess (Cate
Blanchette, right?) and the four "Sex and the City" girls - and I
didn't even watch the TV show! I may not be able to name other movies
with the "Iron Man" main actor, but at least I know who he is, and
without ever seeing the movie! 

OK, maybe "Lost" is a not a good example here, because I actually
watch it, but I can answer general questions about some other TV shows
of which I didn't watch one single episode, because they are so much
talked about. Maybe this is pop culture - something that the most
people know about even without actually reading or watching. But I
suppose there are much less books than movies that can be included in
the "pop-culture" category, you are right about that :-).


zanooda






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 04:06:17 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:06:17 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <485C1564.3050508@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3hunp+pquv@eGroups.com>

> CJ much earlier:
> "Either he or I ____ going."

> Carol:
> You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the 
> nearest noun or pronoun.
 
> CJ (Now):
> This is not a rule I'd ever heard -- let alone been taught 

Goddlefrood:

I'm not a grammarian and know very little about the rules of 
grammar per se. I do know that the answer to the above would 
be to insert 'are'. Then it sounds right. Any inserion of other 
possible conjugations of the verb to be would sound wrong to a 
native of the benighted isles, even were he residing in the 
Clundy or indeed on its other side.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Jun 21 06:50:51 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:50:51 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3hunp+pquv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3i8cb+aoas@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...> wrote:
>
> > CJ much earlier:
> > "Either he or I ____ going."
> 
> > Carol:
> > You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the 
> > nearest noun or pronoun.
>  
> > CJ (Now):
> > This is not a rule I'd ever heard -- let alone been taught 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> I'm not a grammarian and know very little about the rules of 
> grammar per se. I do know that the answer to the above would 
> be to insert 'are'. Then it sounds right. Any inserion of other 
> possible conjugations of the verb to be would sound wrong to a 
> native of the benighted isles, even were he residing in the 
> Clundy or indeed on its other side.

Geoff:
To disagree, to say "Either he or I are going" would sound anything 
but right to me because of the juxtaposition of "I" and "are". 

I agree with  Carol that the wording - which,in the original English 
edition, is  "Philosopher's Stone" chapter "The Midnight Duel" p.110
 - as being the best rendering.






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 16:50:35 2008
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:50:35 -0000
Subject: Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" book  SPOILERS
Message-ID: <g3jbgr+46a0@eGroups.com>

I thought I will share my opinion even though I only read the first 
one so far, since the first time I saw those books mentioned was here 
some time ago and recently somebody seconded recommendation 
(Lizzyben, I believe).

Since I had never been dissapointed with recommendations from you 
guys and I also saw these books seem to be pretty popular and 
Stephanie Meyer was even said to be next JKR, I figured I will check 
them out.


Okay, so first thing first,  in my opinion she is definitely a very 
good writer. I could not put the book down, I finished it in two 
days, the story kept my interest.

If one likes romance, I definitely recommend this book. Having said 
that, if anybody asked me whether she is next JKR, I would laugh for 
a long time.

Actually scratch that, if the question would have been phrased that 
way, my answer would be I do not know.

I certainly believe that her writing skills are good enough to 
produce extremely popular book and again as I heard those books are 
popular, but how to put it?

I have no idea if she can produce a story which actually, well, has a 
plot that includes anything besides romance.

I can see why girl falling in love with a bad boy who tries to be 
good can be extremely popular among teenage girls and as I said, 
story held my interest well.

BUT for me for story to held my interest enough to reread the book, 
book certainly has to contain something else besides romance and 
well, so far I do not see what else is there.

I believe three books are out and fourth is coming this fall? Maybe 
it developes in something more than romance, then it will interest me 
significantly, but if it is not?

All that is left of interest to me is whether they will stay together 
or not and whether they will die or not.

There is nothing to keep my curiosity piqued left. Soooo, I guess I 
am not hundred percent sure, but so far I doubt that I am picking up 
sequel.

I am keeping the first book though.

Oh oh and I cannot tell you how much I was irritated by the girl at 
the end of the book. I wanted to slap the stupid twit soooo badly.

Yeah, okay you want to stay with him, but do you really want to 
become what he is? OY. 

Only my opinion,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 17:19:17 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:19:17 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <485C1564.3050508@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g3jd6l+gaie@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> CJ wrote:
> "Either he or I ____ going."
> 
> Carol:
> You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the
nearest noun or pronoun.
> 
> CJ (Now):
> This is not a rule I'd ever heard -- let alone been taught -- until
 recently. As I said, I was taught to rewrite *because* there was no
solution.
> 
> I've the feeling (admittedly not based on much) that the
nearer-subject rule is one of those inventions of grammarians who
can't stand the fact that there's no solution and take it upon
themselves to invent one.

Carol responds:

All I know is that in the olden days when I was in elementary school,
junior high, and high school, prescriptive grammar was the norm, and
we were taught the "nearest noun" rule along with the rule that the
verb is singular when singular subjects are joined by "or" (as opposed
to a plural verb for singular subjects joined by "and").

To quote my trusty Plain English Handbook, used in my high school
English classes: If a subject is composed of both singular and plural
forms joined by *or* or *nor*, the verb must agree with the nearer:
Neither he nor the boys play golf. The other boys or Henry is to blame." 

Yeah, I know. Those examples are ugly and awkward and I would rephrase
them. They are, nevertheless, correct. 

And, of course, *someone* invented the rules of grammar. I think it
was primarily eighteenth-century grammarians trying to impose logic on
English. "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language" says
that "a new period of interest and involvement in English grammar"
began in the 1760s. "over 200 works on grammar and rhetoric appeared
between 1750 and 1800," the most influential being "A short
Introduction to English Grammar" by Bishop Robert Lowth (1762) and
"English Grammar" by Lindley Murray (1794). According to the
encyclopedia, it took only a generation for what would later be called
"traditional grammar" to take root (pp. 78-79).

A later chapter notes that the traditional (prescriptive) grammar
developed in the late eighteenth century "developed rapidly in the
19th century and was strongly in evidence even in the 1960s" (p.
192)--which pretty much explains my own education in English grammar!
In fact, I remember a shift in attitude toward education and grammar
that took place in the early 1970s when I was taking college courses
in English education. the ground shifted under my feet; everything I'd
been taught or experienced as a student, from traditional grammar to
tracking (separating college-bound students from "regular track"
students who would end up as mechanics or housewives), was being
questioned.

But I digress. I suggest that you hunt up an eighteenth- or
nineteenth-century English grammar, preferably Lowth's or Murry's
(which should be available in your university's library) to see what
those books say about subject/verb agreement in compound subjects
joined by "or." I suspect that you'll find the nearest-noun rule in
one or both. And while you're at it, you might check to see how they
label the pronoun cases. I very much doubt that you'll find accusative
or dative!

As for rewriting, I'm all for it any time a sentence sounds awkward,
whether it's technically correct or incorrect.

Carol, delighted to see such an interest in grammar on the list




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Jun 21 17:33:36 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:33:36 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3hunp+pquv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3je1g+iovk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...>
wrote:
>
> > CJ much earlier:
> > "Either he or I ____ going."
> 
> > Carol:
> > You're correct that the verb in an "or" phrase agrees with the 
nearest noun or pronoun.
>  
> > CJ (Now):
> > This is not a rule I'd ever heard -- let alone been taught 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> I'm not a grammarian and know very little about the rules of 
grammar per se. I do know that the answer to the above would be to
insert 'are'. Then it sounds right. Any inserion of other possible
conjugations of the verb to be would sound wrong to a native of the
benighted isles, even were he residing in the Clundy or indeed on its
other side.
>
Carol responds:

Oops. Wrong. "Are" is used for singular subjects joined by "and" but
not "or." "I are" and "he are" are both incorrect. Singular subjects
joined by "or" remain singular and take a singular verb. If the verb
form differs, as in this case, the verb agrees with the nearest noun.

However, since the correct construction, "Either he or I am going"
sounds absurd, as does the incorrect "Either he or I is going," the
best solution is to rephrase, as CJ's instincts told him to do:
"Either he's going or I am" or "Either he or I will go."

BTW, "sounding right" often leads people astray, as does
hypercorrection, the tendency to "correct" a construction that has
been labeled wrong with no explanation to the supposedly correct
alternative--for example, changing "him and me" to "he and I" even
when "him and me" is correct, resulting in solecisms like "between he
and I."

Carol, who thinks that standard usage should still be taught even if
prescriptive grammar isn't




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Jun 22 00:10:11 2008
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:10:11 -0000
Subject: Mostly grammar
Message-ID: <g3k593+d1gk@eGroups.com>

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36968>:

<< Not all verbs are the same. (snip) some verbs are action verbs and
some are linking verbs.(snip) However, "is" and other forms of "to be"
("am," "are," "was," "were" and, if you want to include archaic forms,
"art," "wast," "wert") don't express action and never take an object.
They merely *link* the subject to further information about itself:
"Her name is Mary;" "She is a pretty girl;" "She is married," etc. If
what follows the verb is a noun, it's called a predicate nominative
because it *renames* the subject ("nomen" means "name," as does
"noun"). "Mary" renames "name": "girl" renames "Mary"). If what
follows is an adjective, it's called a predicate adjective (for
obvious reasons).

Here's a website (not Wikipedia!) that explains it all in an enjoyable
way, and even brings in words other than the "to be" verbs that can
function as linking verbs and therefore take the subjective rather
than the objective case:
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/linkingverb.htm >>

Thank you for explaining it in a way that I understand. I don't
*agree* that 'to be' is not an action, and when I read that website, I
disagreed even more about 'turn', 'seem', and 'feel' not being actions.

But having slept on it for several days, and perhaps inspired by
Miles's post
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36963> about
German, it occurred to me that this probably DOES explain what the
ancients were thinking: they were in the habit of having all nouns
(and and adjectives?) after 'to be' in the nominative, not just
pronouns. While we moderns have the nouns in the objective and the
adjectives don't have case.

Miles wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/36996>:

<< from the PS movie, in the first flying lesson Madam Hooch says:
"I see a single broom in the air, the ONE riding it will find
THEMSELVES out of Hogwarts before THEY can say 'Quidditch'!"

Doesn't it feel odd for a native speaker to switch to plural, although
the sentence starts addressing single persons? I asked a native
speaker who assured me that the sentence is correct, because both male
and female persons are addressed. >>

On the contrary, the natural thing for native speakers of English is
to use the plural for 'everyone', 'everybody', and in this example,
'one'. Grammarians cry and whine that 'everyone' is singular, so
'everyone has his book', and 'everyone has their book' is incorrect,
using plural for singular. Real life speakers know that 'everyone'
means everyone in the group means a plural number of people and
therefore the plural is right. Right beats correct every time.

When grammarians whine about 'they' being a plural used for a singular
person, I tell them to go whine about 'you' being a plural used for a
singular person, and they never bother to answer.

'Everyone had their book' rather than 'his book' long before anyone
worried about the sex of the people in the group. It's not as if it
would be correct to say 'everyone had her book' if all the group were
female. Your native informant gave you the wrong reason.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/37005>:

<< wondering what Madam Hooch thought of having her threat completely
undermined by Professor McGonagall, who rewarded Harry for breaking
her rule by making him the Gryffindor Seeker >>

Hoochie is just so pleased whenever she sees Minnie being
Quidditch-mad that it never occurs to her to complain to Minnie about
dissing her authority over students.





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 22 04:14:17 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:14:17 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3je1g+iovk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g3kjip+f1t2@eGroups.com>

> > > CJ much earlier:
> > > "Either he or I ____ going."

> > Goddlefrood:
> > I do know that the answer to the above would be to insert 
'are'. 

> Carol responds:
> Oops. Wrong. 

Goddlefrood:

Well, what do you know? Instinct leads to what has been given as 
the correct answer by such diverse sources as:

http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic13207.html - Comment by 
Alan, founder of an ESL school and probably versed in grammar.

and this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/370498 - You'd have to join to read 
in full.

I'd rather trust instinct and experts than listen to the 
disagreements here at OTC.

Meanwhile, it's not an expression that is likely to be used all 
that regularly anyway and even if the progenitor of this group 
used another word in place of are, doesn't mean I have to agree 
with her, and I don't. Just as I disagree with both Carol and 
Geoff.

Now, I may not be a grammarian, but I am something of an expert 
in the English language and don't appreciate being told I am 
wrong when I am not. It just depends what you choose to believe 
and I tend to believe my instincts when it comes to MY language 
rather than to quasi experts.




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 22 17:41:32 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 22 Jun 2008 17:41:32 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/22/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1214156492.12.10376.m55@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 22, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20080622/0a463405/attachment.html>

From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Sun Jun 22 22:13:52 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:13:52 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3jd6l+gaie@eGroups.com>
References: <g3jd6l+gaie@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <485ECEA0.8000705@yahoo.com>

Carol responds:
Yeah, I know. Those examples are ugly and awkward and I would rephrase
them. They are, nevertheless, correct.

CJ (Now):
Being trained in linguistics more so than grammar, I find I have an
innate distrust of prescriptive rules. Of the above, I'd ask, "'Correct'
according to *whom*?" When a prescriptive rule such as the one under
discussion produces a result so utterly at odds with common usage, I
tend to discount the rule, no matter how many distinguished authorities
have repeated it.

Carol:
And, of course, *someone* invented the rules of grammar. I think it
was primarily eighteenth-century grammarians trying to impose logic on
English.

CJ (Now):
As something of a populist when it comes to language, I'd reply that the
"someone" who invented the rules of grammar is the entire collective of
native English speakers past and present, and I suspect
eighteenth-century grammarians had very little to do with it. To that
end, I think your "impose on" lies at the heart of the issue. As an
intellectual exercise, I can understand the attraction toward trying to
tease a sense of order out of something as frequently chaotic as a
living, evolving language. But then turning around and trying to impose
that order back upon a language which is often far too busy doing its
job to be much bothered with whether it's acting logically can be
largely an exercise in frustration. And can come across as elitist, to
boot. The French Loi Toubon is, I think, a particularly salient case in
point.

Historically, in fact, languages -- at least English, with whose history
I'm most familiar -- have tended to do a pretty good job cleaning up
their own acts. In reference to another recently-discussed point, case
morphology disappeared from English simply because common folk no longer
found them useful, and I can just picture the frustration of a
ninth-century grammarian watching case morphology fade away from his
beloved Anglo-Saxon despite his best efforts to mark down any student
failing to employ it.

Hmm ... I hope the above didn't come off as a rant. It wasn't intended
to be. I find grammar rules most useful when they're providing insight
into how English actually functions; when a rule diverges from reality,
it has, for me, lost both its authority and its point. Here's an example
of a discussion of Subject-Verb agreement from a linguistic perspective
-- the sort of intellectual discussion I find much more stimulating that
a referral to grammar books.

http://lcnl.wisc.edu/publications/archive/83.pdf

(Note also that the above discussion uses makes reference to "dative
objects" for largely the same reason I do -- it's useful to do so,
irrespective of the fact that English no longer possesses a case
morphology.)

But particularly from my perspective as an ESL educator it seems the
height of absurdity to see my students marked down on their exams for
NOT using such offensive constructs as "Neither he nor I am", just
because some grammar book says that's English. (I'm not speaking
hypothetically; the construct "Neither he nor I am" appears quite
regularly on exams and homework assignments in Taiwan, always as the
correct answer.) Egregious in particular because my students have no
native intuition to tell them how absurd the rule -- or at least its
result -- is.

Carol:
I suggest that you hunt up an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century English
grammar, preferably Lowth's or Murry's (which should be available in
your university's library)...

CJ (Now):
<Chuckle> Living in Taiwan, I unfortunately don't have access to a
university possessing two-century-old English grammar texts.

Carol:
to see what those books say about subject/verb agreement in compound
subjects joined by "or."

CJ (Now):
I think I can guess what they might say. But, as I indicated above, I
find myself more interested in how English deals with the issue than
with how grammarians do.

Carol:
And while you're at it, you might check to see how they
label the pronoun cases. I very much doubt that you'll find accusative
or dative!

CJ (Now):
Rats! I've lost the original reply I was composing on this. I'll just
have to summarize.

I don't know what nineteenth century grammar texts have to say about
accusative and dative, as I regrettably do not have access to a
representative 19th-century corpus. As I mentioned in a previous post,
the citation you provided earlier strongly suggests that at least some
19th-century grammarians were still employing dative and accusative
categories, else why would its author bother with a defense of objective
case at all, with a specific rant directed toward accusative and dative
cases? But I cannot verify my suspicions.

Having said that, however, I am *not* trying to argue that English,
either now or at any time in the last millenium -- has accusative and
dative cases. Certainly I agree that the *morphology* of case has long
disappeared. However, English *has* been shaped by its accusative/dative
past, and there are peculiarities of modern grammatical constructs which
(I find) are harder to explain without reference to English's case past.

I guess my experience with teaching accusative and dative has been
largely the opposite of yours. Generally, my students have little
difficulty grasping the concepts, since they've already mastered the
nearly identical concepts of direct and indirect objects. And I can
generally teach all my students need to know about accusative and dative
in under ten minutes.

--CJ




From donnawonna at att.net  Wed Jun 25 03:24:20 2008
From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:24:20 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: Test
References: <g3jbgr+46a0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4861BA63.000016.01628@LIFESAVER>

    The group is exceptionally quiet and I'm wondering if it's me or yahoo.

Donna

 
 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From n2fgc at arrl.net  Wed Jun 25 06:27:04 2008
From: n2fgc at arrl.net (Lee Storm (God Is The Healing Force))
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 02:27:04 -0400
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Test
In-Reply-To: <4861BA63.000016.01628@LIFESAVER>
References: <g3jbgr+46a0@eGroups.com> <4861BA63.000016.01628@LIFESAVER>
Message-ID: <1360350D4D3D47BBB646F299D931B9FC@FRODO>

[Donna]:
|     The group is exceptionally quiet and I'm wondering if 
| it's m

[Lee]:
Good question...but you're coming through to me.  Let's hope the same can be
said for my coming through to you. :-)

There is one possibility: Dobby's holding all the mail hidden under his
Weasley sweater and won't le it go unless we promises him some chocolate!
:-)

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me,    | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead;   | N2FGC
Do not walk before me,    | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.




From donnawonna at att.net  Wed Jun 25 14:29:11 2008
From: donnawonna at att.net (Donna)
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:29:11 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Subject: Test
References: <g3jbgr+46a0@eGroups.com> <4861BA63.000016.01628@LIFESAVER> <1360350D4D3D47BBB646F299D931B9FC@FRODO>
Message-ID: <48625637.00001F.03008@LIFESAVER>

Lee,

You came through loud and clear.  Thank you.  I checked at the main site and
there's just been no activity.   Guess Dobby is off being free :-).

Donna


 
[Donna]:
| The group is exceptionally quiet and I'm wondering if 
| it's m

[Lee]:
Good question...but you're coming through to me. Let's hope the same can be
said for my coming through to you. :-)

There is one possibility: Dobby's holding all the mail hidden under his
Weasley sweater and won't le it go unless we promises him some chocolate!
:-)

Cheers,

Lee :-)

Do not walk behind me, | Lee Storm
I may not care to lead; | N2FGC
Do not walk before me, | n2fgc at arrl.net (or)
I may not care to follow; | n2fgc at optonline.net
Walk beside me, and be my friend.


 
 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com  Sun Jun 29 17:41:01 2008
From: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com (HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 29 Jun 2008 17:41:01 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 6/29/2008, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1214761261.9.8166.m52@yahoogroups.com>

Reminder from: HPFGU-OTChatter Yahoo! Group
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday June 29, 2008
1:00 pm - 2:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right.

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK




All Rights Reserved
 Copyright  2008 
 Yahoo! Inc.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpfgu-otchatter/attachments/20080629/dd2df6a0/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 02:07:22 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:07:22 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g3kjip+f1t2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g49f4q+egsa@eGroups.com>

CJ much earlier:
> > > > "Either he or I ____ going."
> 
> > > Goddlefrood:
> > > I do know that the answer to the above would be to insert 
> 'are'. 
> 
> > Carol responded:
> > Oops. Wrong. 
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> Well, what do you know? Instinct leads to what has been given as 
> the correct answer by such diverse sources as:
> 
> http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic13207.html - Comment by 
> Alan, founder of an ESL school and probably versed in grammar.
> 
> and this:
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/pss/370498 - You'd have to join to read 
> in full.
> 
> I'd rather trust instinct and experts than listen to the 
> disagreements here at OTC.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's not an expression that is likely to be used all 
> that regularly anyway and even if the progenitor of this group 
> used another word in place of are, doesn't mean I have to agree 
> with her, and I don't. Just as I disagree with both Carol and 
> Geoff.
> 
> Now, I may not be a grammarian, but I am something of an expert 
> in the English language and don't appreciate being told I am 
> wrong when I am not. It just depends what you choose to believe 
> and I tend to believe my instincts when it comes to MY language 
> rather than to quasi experts.
>
Carol responds:
My apologies for so bluntly calling you wrong, but the source you
quoted agrees with me:

I said:

>"Are" is used for singular subjects joined by "and" but
not "or." "I are" and "he are" are both incorrect. Singular subjects
joined by "or" remain singular and take a singular verb. If the verb
form differs, as in this case, the verb agrees with the nearest noun.

> However, since the correct construction, "Either he or I am going"
sounds absurd, as does the incorrect "Either he or I is going," the
best solution is to rephrase, as CJ's instincts told him to do:
"Either he's going or I am" or "Either he or I will go."<

Your first source said, enerally speaking:

"(Either) John or Mary is going to meet you at the airport.
--> singular or singular is
.
"Either the Johnsons or the Smiths are going to buy that old house..
--> plural or plural are

"Generally speaking, if you've got singular and plural words connected
by the word or, then usually the verb agrees with the word it's
closest to.
--> singular or plural are
--> plural or singular is?"

Carol again:

That is exactly the same thing that I'm saying. Can you tell me how
"the verb agrees with the word it's closeset to" (his version) differs
from "If the verb form differs, as in this case, the verb agrees with
the nearest noun."

Possibly I was unclear and ought to have said, "if one noun or pronoun
takes a singular verb and the other takes a plural verb, the verb
agrees with the nearest noun," which is exactly what your authority,
whose credentials may or may not include a PhD in English, also says.

As for your second source, which, as you say, I can't access without
being a member, I don't see the relevance. We're discussing what the
rule is (standard English as agreed upon by the various authorities
that I cited) not the question of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar.

I intended no offense, and I apologize if I sounded flippant with my
"Oops, wrong," Nevertheless, you are mistaken that "Either he or I
*are* going" would ever be considered correct.

Carol, somewhat offended by the tone of your post but striving to keep
her feathers unruffled




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 02:14:50 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:14:50 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <485ECEA0.8000705@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g49fiq+p47s@eGroups.com>

CJ:
> I guess my experience with teaching accusative and dative has been
> largely the opposite of yours. Generally, my students have little
> difficulty grasping the concepts, since they've already mastered the
> nearly identical concepts of direct and indirect objects. And I can
> generally teach all my students need to know about accusative and >
> > dative in under ten minutes.
> 
> --CJ
>
Carol responds:
If they already know about the concepts of direct and indirect
objects, there's no point (IMO) in throwing in the outdated
distinction between accusative and dative. The same form (objective
case) is used for both--*and* matches the names of the uses to which
it is put. Use objective case for objects (direct or indirect objects
and objects of prepositions), What could be simpler?

Ask almost any native English speaker to give you the dative or
accusative case of a particular English pronoun, and I almost
guarantee that you'll get a puzzled look and a "Huh?" in response.

Carol, noting that what is taught these days is standard usage, that
is, usage agreed upon by the authorities, rather than prescriptive grammar




From leekaiwen at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 04:49:55 2008
From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:49:55 +0800
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49fiq+p47s@eGroups.com>
References: <g49fiq+p47s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <486865F3.2080200@yahoo.com>

Carol:
CJ:
nearly identical concepts of direct and indirect objects. And I can
generally teach all my students need to know about accusative and
dative in under ten minutes.

Carol:
If they already know about the concepts of direct and indirect
objects, there's no point (IMO) in throwing in the outdated
distinction between accusative and dative.

CJ (now):
Just because English no longer possesses case morphology doesn't mean 
case hasn't left its footprint on modern English, and I've found that
reference to the historical past of English helps to explain certain 
peculiarities of modern English that are sources of constant confusion 
to my students. Here's one example that I've had raised in my classes 
more than once (just again this week, and I thought of you :-) ):

Give me it.
Give it me.
Give it to me.

are all semantic equivalents in English. DO/IO/objective case can 
describe, but they can't explain. A quick introduction to case and a 
past in which English word order varied more freely has -- to date, at 
least -- satisfied my students' enquiries on this and similar points.

Carol:
The same form (objective case) is used for both--*and* matches
the names of the uses to which it is put.... What could be simpler?

CJ:
As a description, the above works just fine. As an explanation, it 
stinketh :-).

Carol:
Ask almost any native English speaker to give you the dative or
accusative case of a particular English pronoun, and I almost
guarantee that you'll get a puzzled look and a "Huh?" in response.

CJ:
Huh? ( :-) ). Again, all you're doing is repeating the fact that most 
modern grammarians don't teach dative and accusative, which I don't see 
as relevant.

Carol:
noting that what is taught these days is standard usage, that
is, usage agreed upon by the authorities

CJ:
"Neither he nor I am going" is also taught as "standard usage" by the 
"authorities", despite the fact that no native English speaker would be 
caught dead uttering it. So much for the authorities.

As I understand your argument, it boils down to: if the authorities 
teach it, it's correct. If they don't, it's not. As a linguist, OTOH, I 
tend to find the common man's English more definitive that the PhD-laden 
halls of academia (no offense intended :-) ). I also am of the opinion 
that an historical understanding of the development of English is a most 
useful tool in understanding why English today does what it does. And 
though the objective case paradigm may work well descriptively, it is 
utterly ahistorical, and therefore ill-equipped to explain many of 
English's historical errata.

BTW, I'm off to the States for three weeks and will be away from the 
group, so I'll be unable to respond in the meanwhile.


CJ, ever the populist, who thinks the only relevant English 
"authorities" are the people who speak it.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 04:52:46 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:52:46 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49f4q+egsa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g49oqu+v34r@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
<snip>
> Possibly I was unclear and ought to have said, "if one noun or
pronoun takes a singular verb and the other takes a plural verb, the
verb agrees with the nearest noun," which is exactly what your
authority, whose credentials may or may not include a PhD in English,
also says. <sniP>

Carol again:

Apologies for responding to myself, but I want to add that Goddlefrood
*may* be confusing "and" with "or." The compound subject "he *and* I"
takes the plural verb "are" because it involves more than one person.
"He *or* I" remains singular, so it takes a singular verb (only one
person or the other will perform the action or be linked to the
predicate nominative/adjective. However, a problem arises when a "to
be" verb is involved because the singular form of "to be" differs
according to first, second, or third person. Either "he or I is" or
"he or I am" sounds stupid, though the second is technically correct
(in a compound subject joined by "or," the verb agrees in number with
the nearest noun or pronoun). "He or I are" is just wrong. "You or I
are" is also wrong, but "I or you are" would be correct if we didn't
have the "rule" that "I" should be placed last (a matter of custom and
courtesy, not grammar).

At any rate, I do know what I'm talking about, just as I'm sure you
know what you're talking about when it comes to matters of law.

Carol, hoping that the explanation is clearer now and noting that your
being mistaken should not upset you--a lot of people are unaware of
that particular rule





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 04:59:23 2008
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:59:23 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49f4q+egsa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g49p7b+7mt3@eGroups.com>

> Carol said (quoting):
 
> "Are" is used for singular subjects joined by "and" but 
> not "or." "I are" and "he are" are both incorrect. Singular 
> subjects joined by "or" remain singular and take a singular 
> verb. If the verb form differs, as in this case, the verb 
> agrees with the nearest noun.

Goddlefrood:

Ah, but you see it's noted as being a problematic phrase and 
if it did ever come up, and you'll all have noted that I stated 
earlier that the phrase itself would be unlikely to be used at 
all, then different wording would be appropriate.

> Carol:
> We're discussing what the rule is (standard English as agreed 
> upon by the various authorities that I cited) not the question 
> of prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar.

Goddlefrood:
And here's the problem because there are no absolutely rigid 
rules, unlike in French where the academy mentioned in other 
posts governs this sort of thing. What I'm saying is that to 
insert 'are' is what I would say. I couldn't really give two 
figs what the rules may or may not say. It's how *I* would 
say or write the phrase that counts to me. I can live with 
being villified for that, if that's what you care to do.

> Carol:
> I intended no offense, and I apologize if I sounded flippant 
> with my "Oops, wrong," Nevertheless, you are mistaken that 
> "Either he or I *are* going" would ever be considered correct.

Goddlefrood:

It wasn't taken as an offence, and I have said I'm no grammarian. 
I write and talk per what instinct tells me, and usually it does 
not steer me wrong seeing as it is the only language I speak 
fully, even if I have some other languages at my command.

> Carol, somewhat offended by the tone of your post but striving 
> to keep her feathers unruffled

Goddlefrood:

As noted many times, it's difficult to convey tone in written form. 
I assume that when you read 'Well, what do you know?' you took it 
as an attack. Read it again, it's not. It's an expression of my 
pleasure at finding that my instinct in inserting 'are' was not 
necessarily incorrect. Maybe if I'd put 'Well, whadda ya know?' 
that sense would have been conveyed better.

IOW, there's no need to preen.

As this has been a relatively dry exchange and is probably of 
little interest to members not participating I'll be leaving 
this thread and remaining unconvinced.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 30 06:38:30 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:38:30 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49fiq+p47s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g49v16+m5mk@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> If they already know about the concepts of direct and indirect
> objects, there's no point (IMO) in throwing in the outdated
> distinction between accusative and dative. The same form (objective
> case) is used for both--*and* matches the names of the uses to which
> it is put. Use objective case for objects (direct or indirect objects
> and objects of prepositions), What could be simpler?
> 
> Ask almost any native English speaker to give you the dative or
> accusative case of a particular English pronoun, and I almost
> guarantee that you'll get a puzzled look and a "Huh?" in response.

Geoff:
I think that anyone who has a grounding in German or Latin - 
certainly the latter - should be able to give you an answer.

I would be inclined to rephrase your statement as "Ask many native 
English speakers..."

Geoff
Glad that the OT holiday shutdown is over :-)




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 30 06:44:26 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:44:26 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <486865F3.2080200@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <g49vca+p593@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

> CJ, ever the populist, who thinks the only relevant English 
> "authorities" are the people who speak it.


Geoff:
Hear, hear. Well said, sir!

The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion 
on whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those 
who speak  UK English or US English.
:-(






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Jun 30 11:43:47 2008
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:43:47 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49vca+p593@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4agtj+krhu@eGroups.com>


> 
> 
> Geoff:
> Hear, hear. Well said, sir!
> 
> The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion 
> on whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those 
> who speak  UK English or US English.
> :-(


Potioncat:
You're going to let the unwashed masses decide? Oh, dear.

Never mind UK vrs US, it'll be York vrs Cockney in the UK; Rural 
Southern vrs Urban Northern in the US---with a few other groups on 
both sides of the pond piping in with their choices. 

Grammar and pronunciation will go out the window--erm winder. 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 17:09:28 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:09:28 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g49vca+p593@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4b408+g89u@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen@> wrote:
> 
> > CJ, ever the populist, who thinks the only relevant English 
> > "authorities" are the people who speak it.
> 
> 
> Geoff:
> Hear, hear. Well said, sir!
> 
> The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion 
> on whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those 
> who speak  UK English or US English.
> :-(
>
Carol responds:

FWIW, the whole concept of standard English is not based on
"correctess" (prescriptive grammar) but an agreed upon set of
conventions, similar to those for spelling (which, of course, varies
somewhat depending on whether you're British or American) whose
purpose is to make communication easier. (If you've ever tried to read
letters written in Early Modern English, which had conventions of
courtesy but not of spelling, you'll appreciate those conventions.) If
not for the conventions of standard English, we would all be using our
own spelling and grammar (which, alas, appears to be the case among
many young Americans today who have not been taught grammar (standard
usage), spelling, punctuation, or even penmanship. Standard English
also eliminates regional variations that could confuse readers and
speakers not familiar with a particular dialect. There's a reason why
most newscasters in the UK use "received pronunciation" and most in
the US use "general American." Not only are they readily understood,
but they're easier on the ear and more socially acceptable than
dialects such as cockney or accents such as (well, I'm afraid of
offending some of my fellow Americans by specifying accents which hurt
my ears, but I remember as a child thinking that certain NYC accents
sounded barbaric and foreign--please don't throw figurative barbs at
me if you're from Brooklyn!).

I'm beginning to think that certain posters regard the teaching of
English as a waste of time and that students need not be taught to
distinguish between "his" and "their" or even between "their,"
"they're" and "there" or "you're" and "your" or "it's" and "its" or
even "waist" and "waste."

In any case, here's a good definition of standard (written) English
from English.com:

"Standard English, also known as Standard Written English or SWE, is
the form of English most widely accepted as being clear and proper.

"Publishers, writers, educators, and others have over the years
developed a consensus of what standard English consists of. It
includes word choice, word order, punctuation, and spelling.

"Standard English is especially helpful when writing because it
maintains a fairly uniform standard of communication which can be
understood by all speakers and users of English regardless of
differences in dialect, pronunciation, and usage. This is why it is
sometimes called Standard Written English.

"There are a few minor differences between standard usage in England
and the United States, but these differences do not significantly
affect communication in the English language." 

Carol, who can think of no better way of determining a standard than a
consensus of the informed and educated




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 17:12:42 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:12:42 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g4agtj+krhu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4b46a+sr6u@eGroups.com>

Geoff:
> > Hear, hear. Well said, sir!
> > 
> > The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion on
whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those who speak 
UK English or US English.
 
> Potioncat:
> You're going to let the unwashed masses decide? Oh, dear.
> 
> Never mind UK vrs US, it'll be York vrs Cockney in the UK; Rural 
Southern vrs Urban Northern in the US---with a few other groups on 
both sides of the pond piping in with their choices. 
> 
> Grammar and pronunciation will go out the window--erm winder.
>
Carol responds:

Don't that beat all, y'all? Well, it don't make *me* no never mind!

Carol, recalling her days in No'Cahlina fondly but glad that
"Southern" is not the standard dialect for American English




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Jun 30 17:16:55 2008
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:55 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g4b408+g89u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4b4e7+k6fl@eGroups.com>

Carol earlier:
> 
> FWIW, the whole concept of standard English is not based on
"correctess" (prescriptive grammar) but an agreed upon set of
conventions, similar to those for spelling (which, of course, varies
somewhat depending on whether you're British or American) whose
purpose is to make communication easier. <snip>

Carol again:

Erm, make that "correct*ness*". Unless, of course, correct spelling no
longer matters.

Carol, who will continue to advocate writing in the active voice and
using standard English and avoiding jargon as long as she continues in
her current profession and probably longer




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 30 22:16:35 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:16:35 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g4agtj+krhu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4bm03+fkrj@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > Hear, hear. Well said, sir!
> > 
> > The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion 
> > on whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those 
> > who speak  UK English or US English.
> > :-(
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> You're going to let the unwashed masses decide? Oh, dear.
> 
> Never mind UK vrs US, it'll be York vrs Cockney in the UK; Rural 
> Southern vrs Urban Northern in the US---with a few other groups on 
> both sides of the pond piping in with their choices. 
> 
> Grammar and pronunciation will go out the window--erm winder.

Geoff:
They don't have to be unwashed to speak UK English. As for the others, well......

Anyway, what's York got to do with it?






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Jun 30 22:27:07 2008
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:27:07 -0000
Subject: Subject-Verb agreement with compound subjects
In-Reply-To: <g4b408+g89u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <g4bmjr+tvvg@eGroups.com>

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen@> wrote:
> > 
> > > CJ, ever the populist, who thinks the only relevant English 
> > > "authorities" are the people who speak it.
> > 
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > Hear, hear. Well said, sir!
> > 
> > The only problem now is that someone will start a discussion 
> > on whether the only relevant English  "authorities" are those 
> > who speak  UK English or US English.
> > :-(
> >
Carol: 
> FWIW, the whole concept of standard English is not based on
> "correctess" (prescriptive grammar) but an agreed upon set of
> conventions, similar to those for spelling (which, of course, varies
> somewhat depending on whether you're British or American) whose
> purpose is to make communication easier. (If you've ever tried to read
> letters written in Early Modern English, which had conventions of
> courtesy but not of spelling, you'll appreciate those conventions.) If
> not for the conventions of standard English, we would all be using our
> own spelling and grammar (which, alas, appears to be the case among
> many young Americans today who have not been taught grammar (standard
> usage), spelling, punctuation, or even penmanship. Standard English
> also eliminates regional variations that could confuse readers and
> speakers not familiar with a particular dialect. There's a reason why
> most newscasters in the UK use "received pronunciation" and most in
> the US use "general American." 

Geoff:
Nowadays, there are many newsreaders (not newscasters) in the UK who 
have dialects but who speak perfectly good English. I think that you are 
inadvertently bringing dialect words into your discussion. "Received 
pronunciation' and "Oxford English" are seen as anachronisms which 
date a film or report as being well in the past.

Carol:
> "There are a few minor differences between standard usage in England
> and the United States, but these differences do not significantly
> affect communication in the English language." 

Geoff:
Excuse me laughing loudly about that one. There are spelling differences, 
words which carry one meaning or nuance in the UK and another in the 
US and and words which exist only in one of the two.
 
> Carol, who can think of no better way of determining a standard than a
> consensus of the informed and educated

Geoff:
Provided that the "informed and educated" - whoever they may be - are 
prepared to accept a consensus and not argue that they and they alone 
are the arbiters of the language.






From davbot at comcast.net  Mon Jun 30 22:55:20 2008
From: davbot at comcast.net (nj39inmorris)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:55:20 -0000
Subject: Meeting other Harry Potter fans
Message-ID: <g4bo8o+qdn1@eGroups.com>

Hello all,

My main intent in joining this group was to let everyone know that I 
organize a HP fan club in Princeton, NJ. You can go to Meetup.com and 
search for Harry Potter, Princeton.

I also wanted to add that I'm most of the way through TDH but I haven't 
had time to read lately.

David Botticelli