Grammar Discussions

[OzEire]

Which are correct ?

His Frequent Flyers number

His Frequent Flyer number

Their Frequent Flyer numbers

They are Frequent Flyers (members of QFF, not referring to frequency of travel).

They are Frequent Fliers.

 

[get me outta here]

I'd bong the first and last phrases.

Which are correct ?

His Frequent Flyers number

His Frequent Flyer number

Their Frequent Flyer numbers

They are Frequent Flyers (members of QFF, not referring to frequency of travel).

They are Frequent Fliers.

 

[JessicaTam]

I'd bong the first and last phrases.

Although lose the capital 'f's and the last one would be fine. Based on frequency of flying, not membership.

 

[medhead]

Which are correct ?

His Frequent Flyers number

His Frequent Flyer number

Their Frequent Flyer numbers

They are Frequent Flyers (members of QFF, not referring to frequency of travel).

They are Frequent Fliers.

None of them. Only proper nouns should be capitalised. But ignoring that minor point. Not the first one, mixing singular and plural.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I've received a couple of scoopon deals for dinner at the Wondsor Hotel in melbourne.

The link to their menu lists the following:

Handmade Buratta
spring pea’s, Thai basil and roast chicken juices

You'd think the Windsor might get it right... even if it was the pea's juices.. there is a lack of consistency for the remaining items.

 

[JessicaTam]

I've received a couple of scoopon deals for dinner at the Wondsor Hotel in melbourne.

The link to their menu lists the following:


You'd think the Windsor might get it right... even if it was the pea's juices.. there is a lack of consistency for the remaining items.

But it sound's delicious.

 

[Captain Halliday]

None of them. Only proper nouns should be capitalised. But ignoring that minor point. Not the first one, mixing singular and plural.

Except in legal speak where words with defined meanings are capitalised. Such as in the Frequent Flyer T&Cs.

Even so, I can't think of any technicality that would enable the first of OzEire's options to be acceptable.

 

[Julesmac]

I may (or may not ) be showing my age, but that sounds like a comment Greenbottle would make!

Hmm I say youngster, are you referring by any chance to "The Goon Show"? In which case I think you mean Bluebottle. Or possibly Eccles...

 

[anat0l]

Researchers in general are accused of perpetuating two apparently abhorrent behaviours in literacy:

1. Writing in the third person, and
2. Writing in passive voice.

I think most scientists know clearly why at least the first one is necessary. I can barely stand (especially a physical science) paper which is written in first person.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Hmm I say youngster, are you referring by any chance to "The Goon Show"? In which case I think you mean Bluebottle. Or possibly Eccles...

Youngster! You're now my new best friend. What a lovely thing to say.

No, not the Goon Show.........a radio play that was done by 5AD in the '30s. It's now referred to as "Yes, What".

 

[get me outta here]

Agree, also receiving technical consultant's reports peppered with exclamation marks along with the passive voice and measures of success that include outputs instead of measurable outcomes.

I will now get back on topic of grammar discussions.

QUOTE=anat0l;1130781]Researchers in general are accused of perpetuating two apparently abhorrent behaviours in literacy:

1. Writing in the third person, and
2. Writing in passive voice.

I think most scientists know clearly why at least the first one is necessary. I can barely stand (especially a physical science) paper which is written in first person.[/QUOTE]

 

[medhead]

Agree, also receiving technical consultant's reports peppered with exclamation marks along with the passive voice and measures of success that include outputs instead of measurable outcomes.

I will now get back on topic of grammar discussions.

Researchers in general are accused of perpetuating two apparently abhorrent behaviours in literacy:

1. Writing in the third person, and
2. Writing in passive voice.

I think most scientists know clearly why at least the first one is necessary. I can barely stand (especially a physical science) paper which is written in first person.

I've mentioned it elsewhere but I'm currently battling commissioning reports that include words like normally and typically and usually. There is a distinct lack of 'did' and 'does' in statements of performance.

My favourite was something like:
'The device was calibrated by doing A and taking a measurement. Then doing B and taking a measurement. The two values should agree.'

Ok yes they should agree but did they agree?! I had to stop reading the report at that point and go for a walk.

By comparison first person would be sheer luxury.

 

[anat0l]

'The device was calibrated by doing A and taking a measurement. Then doing B and taking a measurement. The two values should agree.'

Ok yes they should agree but did they agree?! I had to stop reading the report at that point and go for a walk.

So that short phrase should be followed with (as a new sentence or after a comma) either a contrasting report saying that the didn't (and why), or one confirming that they did in this case (which would be unusual to make such a sentence, but still better than nothing).

That's not much to do with the language and more to do with someone trying to fudge a report or a job. In other words, whoever wrote it was either simply shooting the **** or no work was done.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Would anyone care to comment on this from the current Coles catalogue with reference to a particular cut of lamb: "Don't cook past medium doneness or it will be dry."

Edit: The word "doneness" appears in a couple of dictionaries but doesn't feel/sound right. Perhaps because "don't cook past medium" would have been sufficient in this context.

 

[medhead]

So that short phrase should be followed with (as a new sentence or after a comma) either a contrasting report saying that the didn't (and why), or one confirming that they did in this case (which would be unusual to make such a sentence, but still better than nothing).

That's not much to do with the language and more to do with someone trying to fudge a report or a job. In other words, whoever wrote it was either simply shooting the **** or no work was done.

I think a combination of inexperience at writing reports (recent graduate) along with both options you mention. I was focussing on the language aspect rather than the reasons the language is utter rubbish.

 

[Captain Halliday]

This is outrageous. Especially in a children's book.
Sorry I couldn't rotate the image.

 

[get me outta here]

Yes, it is - name and shame the author (and editor), with a photo of the cover.

This is outrageous. Especially in a children's book.
Sorry I couldn't rotate the image.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

I think it's either Channel 7 or Seven 2 (Ch 127 on Foxtel) that promotes the program "Air Crash Investigations" when it is Air Crash Investigation singular.

 

[whatmeworry]

A map of Australian Language. Oh and i will never call a potato cake a scallop.
Maps of Australian language

 

[Julesmac]

Just had a wee chuckle. An on-line headline this morning. "Anonymous street artist Banksy...."
I'm guessing that would be the anonymous street artist whose name we DON'T know, and who doesn't make a motza selling signed reproductions of his work?