1 3 4 5 6  8 9 10
Oi! AOL is my current choice because it's the cheapest ... to read headers you'd realise how I access this ng.

What is it that I wrote that made you think that I can't read your headers?

'a complete lack of knowledge of what are the better options of accessing these exalted fora' - this suggests to me that you are unaware of how I access this ng. There is no better news server than the one I use (unless you want binaries, which I don't).
BTW, why do you use the BrE spelling of "realize"? Are you here or there?

I'm here of course. That's 'there' to you. Click the links in my sig and you'll get some idea where I am - and while you're there you may as well get yer plastic out (-:

Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
>
Speaking of punctuation, I am sure that the "who is" sentence needs a question mark somewhere. I would probably add it in parentheses (2)
I'm not sure that I agree, but then, I'm not an expert on punctuation, yet, (who is?), especially since there are no set-in-stone rules for it in English.
I can't remember if it is ever allowable for a sentence to have internal question marks (not in parenthesis) and then keep going. Something like
(3)
I'm not sure that I agree, but then, I'm not an expert on punctuation, yet, who is? especially since there are no set-in-stone rules for it in English.
This one is like (2) but with dashes in place of parentheses (4)
I'm not sure that I agree, but then, I'm not an expert on punctuation, yet, who is? especially since there are no set-in-stone rules for it in English.
For completeness, the question mark could come at the end (5)
I'm not sure that I agree, but then, I'm not an expert on punctuation, yet, who is, especially since there are no set-in-stone rules for it in English?
That "yet" does complicate things.
(We know rewrites are possible,
but what is the best way to punctuate the actual sentence?)

Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. (subthread of Two Flags - as described by my EFL students)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
"Richard Maurer" (Email Removed) wrote on 09 Nov 2003:
<< (Skitt) I see what you're saying. I'm not sure that I agree, but then, I'm not an expert on ... "yet" does complicate things. (We know rewrites are possible, but what is the best way to punctuate the actual sentence?)[/nq]
I'd make the one into two and remove the "then":
I'm not sure that I agree, but I'm not an expert
on punctuation. Yet, who is, especially since there are no set-in-stone rules for it in English?
The first sentence has two thoughts. It doesn't need to be connected to the second sentence.
How should the sentence have read? Where does the "to" go, or what should it replace?

"It is to no avail." Things are "to", not "of", no avail.

Actually this is not correct, at least for Rightpondia. Things are of no avail, actions are to no avail.
I bought a new lightbulb, but it was of no avail.
I used a new lightbulb, to no avail.
Is this pondian?
Matti
"Skitt" (Email Removed) wrote on 09 Nov 2003:
Oi! AOL is my current choice because it's the cheapest ... to read headers you'd realise how I access this ng.

People who will use any means to an end cannot be trusted. And when they get defensive about their choices, they shoot themselves in both feet. Nobody cares how you access this NG. You use AOL and that's good enough for us. You would probably be doing yourself a favor if you lurked in some other NG, one that would teach you how to express your opinions clearly and more like the higher-level primate you appear to be than the parrot you come across as. Try alt.chimp.manners.bananars.
What is it that I wrote that made you think that I can't read your headers? BTW, why do you use the BrE spelling of "realize"? Are you here or there?

He does say "People who rubbish it", and that is not idiomatic AmE. We'd say "trash it". And he doesn't spell "Oy!" the way the rest of us do. He is most certainly an alien.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
"Matti Lamprhey" (Email Removed) wrote on 09 Nov 2003:
"It is to no avail." Things are "to", not "of", no avail.

Actually this is not correct, at least for Rightpondia. Things are of no avail, actions are to no avail. I bought a new lightbulb, but it was of no avail. I used a new lightbulb, to no avail. Is this pondian?

Sounds right (correct, I mean) to me.
On 9 Nov 2003 10:55:46 GMT, CyberCypher
People who will use any means to an end cannot be trusted. And when they get defensive about their choices, ... clearly and more like the higher-level primate you appear to be than the parrot you come across as. Try alt.chimp.manners.bananars.

What is it that I wrote that made you think ... the BrE spelling of "realize"? Are you here or there?

He does say "People who rubbish it", and that is not idiomatic AmE. We'd say "trash it". And he doesn't spell "Oy!" the way the rest of us do. He is most certainly an alien.

Alas, Cyber, you fail to understand my humour.

Paul
My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003): http://paulrooney.netfirms.com
Please sponsor me for the London Marathon at:
http://www.justgiving.com/london2004
You're saying that "The flag was green, and yellow" is better than "The flag was green and yellow"??>

Are you faking ignorance? Of course, I'm not saying that. You knowbetter, I'm sure> OK, so you want to be ... line below your "Right"): That last line, showing one of the two conventions, is not the best one. Got it?

Why've you got a strop on? 1. You didn't make yourself clear. 2. The convention you follow makes little sense. Why should "green and yellow" be right and "orange, green and yellow" be wrong? Why should anyone believe that it is in any way helpful to add a comma to it? Does it really make our lives more straightforward to unlearn something which makes sense and force oneself to learn something which doesn't make sense? I thought that the powers that be were interfering in the natural order of things because they were trying to help us by making things more consistent, more logical, and easier to understand, not less. (Notice I've included a comma there to represent the way I would speak.)
Does it have to be at least three elements then? What is an element? A clause? Not an adjective?

Sheesh. Do you have to be taught everything? Read the rest of thematerial on the site. Don't bother me, I'm not a teacher I don't have the patience for being one.

I came back at you here because the example you gave was of a different type to the one in the OP. Please give like-for-like examples when arguing a point.
atb
Adrian
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
"It is to no avail." Things are "to", not "of", no avail.

Is that an extra comma I espy? (The one after "of".)

No, it ends the parenthesis begun by the previous comma, just as if it were

Things are "to" (not "of") no avail.
You surely don't want
Things are "to" (not "of" no avail.
Show more