Jump to content


Photo

Recitals


  • Please log in to reply
647 replies to this topic

#41 MusingMuso

MusingMuso

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,823 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keighley, W.Yorks

Posted 17 May 2007 - 02:13 PM

That's rather what it sounded like when we were playing it.

Anyone got any chamade recordings they'd care to submit, about a minute long and as vulgar as possible? I was thinking we should have a "Guess the Chamade" contest.



=========================


This from the man who complained about Virgil Fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:huh:

MM

#42 headcase

headcase

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent

Posted 17 May 2007 - 02:34 PM

This is all going to lead to chamade envy...tch, tch.

H

This is all going to lead to chamade envy...tch, tch.

H

#43 ajt

ajt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2007 - 04:14 PM

I have one, how do I upload it anywhere, though?
P.


You can e-mail it to me (ajt at laudachoir dot org) or I'm sure DC will upload it somewhere for you.

#44 AJJ

AJJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,576 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somerset UK

Posted 17 May 2007 - 04:57 PM

You can e-mail it to me (ajt at laudachoir dot org) or I'm sure DC will upload it somewhere for you.


Can we all do this?

AJJ
"…We can’t criticize the organ for being boring. In such cases it is the organist that is boring. There is no such thing as a boring organ."

#45 pcnd5584

pcnd5584

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 17 May 2007 - 05:21 PM

... I shall report back when I've got the CD's out of the car ...


The CD's what?
:huh:
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man


#46 ajt

ajt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2007 - 08:49 PM

Can we all do this?

AJJ


Sure.


The CD's what?
:huh:


Perfectly valid and correct use of the apostrophe - use when indicating a plural of a capitalised abbreviation. Current "thinking" says no on this, but, until recently, it was deemed the correct way.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that this form was the "British" form, and the CDs was "American", which, of course, has now taken over.


Sure.




Perfectly valid and correct use of the apostrophe - use when indicating a plural of a capitalised abbreviation. Current "thinking" says no on this, but, until recently, it was deemed the correct way.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that this form was the "British" form, and the CDs was "American", which, of course, has now taken over.


Does anyone else hate this amalgamation of replies that the board now does automagically?

#47 Vox Humana

Vox Humana

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,585 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2007 - 08:57 PM

I think it's rather neat, personally. Saves space.

#48 Heckelphone

Heckelphone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2007 - 09:23 PM

I have one, how do I upload it anywhere, though?
P.


Email it to me (hope it's not the one I think it is?) and I can host it.

D

#49 pwhodges

pwhodges

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 17 May 2007 - 09:56 PM

Perfectly valid and correct use of the apostrophe - use when indicating a plural of a capitalised abbreviation. Current "thinking" says no on this, but, until recently, it was deemed the correct way.

I believe, although I could be wrong, that this form was the "British" form, and the CDs was "American", which, of course, has now taken over.

I can find no reference that agrees with you - what's yours? The nearest thing I can find is that Hart's Rules (aka Oxford Guide to Style) allows constructions like 'do's as an alternative to dos for the plurals of words as objects, and a certain recent popular book on punctuation has mistaken this for do's - it would be easy to carry this mistake over to capital abbreviations, I suppose.

Paul

#50 Heckelphone

Heckelphone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2007 - 10:54 PM

Can we all do this?

AJJ

Yes.

The CD's what?
:huh:

Hmm. I shan't feel so bad about posting those clips now...

Does anyone else hate this amalgamation of replies that the board now does automagically?

No.

#51 ajt

ajt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2007 - 11:17 PM

I can find no reference that agrees with you - what's yours? The nearest thing I can find is that Hart's Rules (aka Oxford Guide to Style) allows constructions like 'do's as an alternative to dos for the plurals of words as objects, and a certain recent popular book on punctuation has mistaken this for do's - it would be easy to carry this mistake over to capital abbreviations, I suppose.

Paul


The language allows for the use of the apostrophe for plurals to remove abiguity - i.e. we could talk about dotting the is, but I think you would find it easier if I wrote i's instead.

It is also valid to use 's to denote plurals of capital letters, numbers and symbols, e.g. 's or 1970's or CD's. I have no reference for this - I don't even own an English language dictionary. I am pretty certain that the same text to which you refer above (the Lynne Truss, not Hart!) will agree with me. The best I can do is cite a few websites.

#52 Heckelphone

Heckelphone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire

Posted 17 May 2007 - 11:32 PM

The language allows for the use of the apostrophe for plurals to remove abiguity - i.e. we could talk about dotting the is, but I think you would find it easier if I wrote i's instead.

It is also valid to use 's to denote plurals of capital letters, numbers and symbols, e.g. 's or 1970's or CD's. I have no reference for this - I don't even own an English language dictionary. I am pretty certain that the same text to which you refer above (the Lynne Truss, not Hart!) will agree with me. The best I can do is cite a few websites.


Cheer's for this Adrian. I have a usage dictionary, but it's at least 16p away from my desk, and 0030h is far too late to be looking up such things.

#53 Vox Humana

Vox Humana

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,585 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2007 - 12:07 AM

I am pretty certain that the same text to which you refer above (the Lynne Truss, not Hart!) will agree with me.

[pedant]

Lynne Truss does indeed allow the apostrophe to indicate plurals of words, as in do's and don't's, but's and and's. Well, never trust a book that doesn't have an index, that's all I can say.

Personally I'd put more faith in The Oxford Guide to Style which, as Paul points out, stipulates that, where confusion might arise, you should either put the word within quotes ('do's and 'don't's) or in italics (dos and don'ts - note the s is not italicised). Otherwise it advises against using the apostrophe when creating plurals, including abbreviations such as QCs, SOSs, the 1990s, etc.

[/pedant]

I'd hate anyone to construe from the above that I think I know anything about English. I was once conned into spending a few weeks teaching it to a group of Swedish teenagers. It was one of the most embarrassing experiences of my life: the two adult Swedes in charge of them knew far more about how our language worked than I had ever learnt. Still, some of the girls were fun.

#54 pcnd5584

pcnd5584

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 18 May 2007 - 06:03 AM

Perfectly valid and correct use of the apostrophe - use when indicating a plural of a capitalised abbreviation. Current "thinking" says no on this, but, until recently, it was deemed the correct way.


Sorry - as far as I know this has never been correct. It denotes a plural - not a possessive. If I were to write a report for one of my grammar school pupils which contained a similar error, it would get no further than the Director of Music, before being returned with a note requesting a fresh (and corrected) report. There was, in any case, no ambiguity in David's sentence, therefore the apostrohe is redundant.

1970's is also incorrect in the context in which you implied its usage.

For the record, I cite The Oxford Manual of Style.


Otherwise it advises against using the apostrophe when creating plurals, including abbreviations such as QCs, SOSs, the 1990s, etc.


Thank you for this, Vox - I had thought it likely that two heads of English in two good schools were at fault - to say nothing of the possibility of The Oxford Manual of Style being incorrect....

Incidentally, I also dislike this amalgamation of responses. I would still prefer the old Mander branding; I find the default typeface aesthetically offensive.

Pierre Cochereau rocked, man


#55 JJK

JJK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 18 May 2007 - 06:57 AM

It is also valid to use 's to denote plurals of capital letters, numbers and symbols,


By " 's " I assume you mean " ''s "

:huh:

#56 Heckelphone

Heckelphone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hampshire

Posted 18 May 2007 - 07:14 AM

There was, in any case, no ambiguity in David's sentence...


I'm delighted to hear it. Everything's fine, then.

#57 ajt

ajt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2007 - 08:04 AM

1970's is also incorrect in the context in which you implied its usage.


's to denote plurals of numbers is perfectly acceptable usage. I am a total pedant about apostrophes, and get really ****ed off when I see them being as plurals, but in this case CD's and 1970's there is nothing wrong. Has anyone got a copy of a) that Truss book (I hate the title!), :huh: Fowler?

You may have been taught one way by some very good teachers, pcnd, but I would argue that I have been taught by equally good people. Some of these points of punctuation/grammar/spelling are institution specific - just look at spellings of organisation and organization - the OED, I believe goes for the z, whereas you can find other "British" English dictionaries that give you it with an s (Collins, I think, for one?) I believe the same is true of this usage of the 's for a very specific number of plurals - the *Oxford* Manual of Style implies that it is associated with an institution and mandates the writing style as laid down by that institution.

#58 john carter

john carter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2007 - 08:34 AM

's to denote plurals of numbers is perfectly acceptable usage. I am a total pedant about apostrophes, and get really ****ed off when I see them being as plurals, but in this case CD's and 1970's there is nothing wrong. Has anyone got a copy of a) that Truss book (I hate the title!), :huh: Fowler?

Reluctant, as I am, to enter this discussion, a brief look at Hart, Fowler and Truss suggests that the use of the apostrophe in the plurals of abbreviations and numerals was commonplace until recently, but is now thought best omitted. This, presumably, is part of the same ink and paper saving strategy made into a fine art by music publishers.
JC

#59 ajt

ajt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 May 2007 - 09:28 AM

Reluctant, as I am, to enter this discussion, a brief look at Hart, Fowler and Truss suggests that the use of the apostrophe in the plurals of abbreviations and numerals was commonplace until recently, but is now thought best omitted. This, presumably, is part of the same ink and paper saving strategy made into a fine art by music publishers.
JC


My point exactly.

#60 pcnd5584

pcnd5584

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England

Posted 18 May 2007 - 02:00 PM

's to denote plurals of numbers is perfectly acceptable usage. I am a total pedant about apostrophes, and get really ****ed off when I see them being as plurals, but in this case CD's and 1970's there is nothing wrong. Has anyone got a copy of a) that Truss book (I hate the title!), :D Fowler?

You may have been taught one way by some very good teachers, pcnd, but I would argue that I have been taught by equally good people. Some of these points of punctuation/grammar/spelling are institution specific - just look at spellings of organisation and organization - the OED, I believe goes for the z, whereas you can find other "British" English dictionaries that give you it with an s (Collins, I think, for one?) I believe the same is true of this usage of the 's for a very specific number of plurals - the *Oxford* Manual of Style implies that it is associated with an institution and mandates the writing style as laid down by that institution.


I am also reluctant to prolong this matter. However, I have just spoken with a colleague (who is an approved proof-reader for OUP). She disagrees that it was acceptable until recently. As far as OUP is concerned, the apostrophe simply denotes a possessive state and should not be used in these cases.

Whilst I recognise your point regarding the teaching which you received, neverthless, I can think of many institutions which adhere to the same rules as OUP in these cases.

Adrian, it is unlikely that I will persuade you that you are mistaken; it is equally unlikely that you will convince me that I am in error. Therefore I have a cunning plan - we could call this a stalemate and return to writing about organs.


B)
Pierre Cochereau rocked, man





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users