Harry's B-day Re: Riddle and Grindelwald in 1945

[romulusmmcdougal]

No: HPFGUIDX 109281

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at a...> wrote:

> Geoff:
> I think you actually mean "adverbial clauses" and "adjectival 
> clauses"...
> 
> The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a preposition as  
> an "indeclinable word serving to mark relations between the noun or 
> pronoun it governs and another word", i.s. words like for, on, by etc.

Yes thank you.  I mean "Adverb Prepositional Phrases" and "Adjective 
Prepositional Phrases".  I guess I get lazy and do the shortcut 
method.


> > Therefore, based on grammar, the headline can indicate that the 
> > investigations were continuing on 31 July instead of the break-in 
> > occurring on 31 July.
> 
> 
> Geoff:
> But that type of wording would never be used in a UK paper. A fairly 
> standard layout would be "Investigations continue into the (recent) 
> break-in at Gringotts (on Tuesday)/(on 31st July). The only possible 
> structure which might use your heading wuold be if n investigation 
> was re-opening with 31st July as the date ut was happening - not the 
> date of the break-in.

I respectfully disagree.
"never be used in a UK paper" is not a valid objection. I'm sorry, but 
newspapers are some of the worst places to find good grammar!

A valid objection would be to show that adjective prepositional 
phrases override adverb prepositional phrases in priority of 
consideration when constructing a sentence in the English language.
Secondly, whether the investigation is "continuing" or "re-opening" 
does not change the fact that both are verbs and both can be modified 
by adverb prepositional phrases.

And "on 31 July" can be considered an adverb prepositional phrase or, 
I must admit an adjective prepositional phrase that modifies the noun 
preceding it -- "Gringotts".  Therefore, it is ambiguous.

However, if we are to credit Jo Rowling, the TEACHER, with any sense 
of knowledge about grammatical rules and times and dates, we must 
admit that while that wording has "never be[en] used in a UK paper", 
we must have some respect for Jo and give her the benefit of the 
doubt.

I say that Jo left this ambiguous to keep us off-balance.

> 
> RMM:
> > Secondly, the "piece of paper", the cutting from the Daily Prophet, 
> > was lying on the table under the tea cozy. This implies that the 
> > cutting was from an old paper and not a new one. Hagrid cut it out of 
> > an old issue of the Daily Prophet because of its significance in 
> > regards to the Stone and Hagrid and Harry being at Gringotts on the 
> > same day of the break-in.
> 
> 
> Geoff:
> Which I considered and decided was't really relevant.


It can make a great deal of difference.  If the cutting was from 
today's paper -- which would bear a September or October date on it, 
then the relevance of "on 31 July" would indicate absolutely that the 
break-in occurred "on 31 July".  However, the cutting, laying under a 
tea cozy, tells us that it is old and is only there because of the 
relevance to when Hagrid and Harry were at the bank.  As it is old 
then, "on 31 July" can indicate that the investigation was continuing 
"on 31 July".

RMM