Jump to content
Mander Organs
John Sayer

21st-century Bach - Worth Another Look?

Recommended Posts

In the case of "pcnd" (or his junior equivalent, and rather less grammatically correct 'pcnd'), the use of epaulettes is justified on the grounds that it is not a proper name, but a pseudonymn or 'titulaire' for one other, which appears within the body of another organ; namely the "Mander discussion board." (Note the epaulettes).

 

Strictly speaking, it is an acronym and, as such, does not requre inverted commas.

 

For the record, I was not seeking to correct your grammar - I would not normally presume to do so. I merely wondered why you felt that my pseudonym (acronym) required commas ('epaulettes') and yours did not. In any case, it is more usual in Britain to use single commas - not speech marks; (double commas are, however, normally employed in the U.S). Alternatively, one could render the quote in italic characters - many sources have adopted this method.

 

It is therefore important to use these attractive little accretions as quotation marks, for indeed, we are quoting from the said discussion board, and the letters pcnd, in isolation, mean absolutely nothing at all, to anyone, anywhere. Of course, if written as P.C. - N.D., there may be the slim chance that a passing French organist may be alerted to the name of another French organist who passed away some years ago.

 

However, I am not quite certain whether one should use the same epaulettes within the body of the said organ, but as "The Times" will often quote "The Times" in its own publication, I am quite happy to accept this as a correct use of quotation marks.

 

MM

 

I do not know the answer to this, either. However, it is still more usual to use single commas - unless one wishes to indicate the use of dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think "pcnd" was questioning my grammar, even though she died many years ago.

 

 

MM

 

 

No - if I were to presume to complain about the perceived grammatical inaccuracies of other contributors, I should be more inclined to mention redundant apostrophes.

 

For example: "This organ was built in the 1950s" does not need an apostrophe, whereas "The 1950's method was to introduce lower wind pressures" does require an apostrophe. In the same way, "The '50s" also requires an apostrophe. In short, the first is plural, the second possessive and the third an abbreviation.*

 

However, I would not wish to moan about others' use of apostrophes, lest anyone here should think me unduly concerned with irrelevant minutiae - or just tetchy.

 

 

 

* Whilst there are, of course, some exceptions (for example, 'its'), nevertheless this is a reasonably reliable method of assessing whether or not an apostrophe is required.

 

Furthermore, whilst I realise that this is way off-topic, I did consider that starting a thread which sought to establish how many organ lofts were accessed via a stone staircase was a little weak....

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, it is more usual in Britain to use single commas - not speech marks; (double commas are, however, normally employed in the U.S).

 

 

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

 

Godammit! I never should have got involved with that American academic who taught English.

 

:(

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The 1950's method was to introduce lower wind pressures" does require an apostrophe.

I disagree, if we're playing a game of pedants :( .

 

Consider "he used the method of 1949" which can correspond to "he used the 1949 method" or "he used 1949's method"; hence "he used the method of the 1950s" corresponds to "he used the 1950s method" or "he used the 1950s' method" according to how you choose to parse "the 1950s" in the last two cases (the second seems unnatural, eliding a second "the"). But not "the 1950's" in this instance.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, if we're playing a game of pedants :(

 

Consider "he used the method of 1949" which can correspond to "he used the 1949 method" or "he used 1949's method"; hence "he used the method of the 1950s" corresponds to "he used the 1950s method" or "he used the 1950s' method" according to how you choose to parse "the 1950s" in the last two cases (the second seems unnatural, eliding a second "the"). But not "the 1950's" in this instance.

 

Paul

 

Which, surely, was my point.

 

"The 1950s were years of mixed blessings" - no apostrophe. Or, "The CDs are very good" - again, no apostrophe.

 

I must confess that I found the exact meaning of your explanation to be somewhat immured in obfuscation.

 

Try the following:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A790175

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, whilst I realise that this is way off-topic, I did consider that starting a thread which sought to establish how many organ lofts were accessed via a stone staircase was a little weak....

.... and just about as weak as the thread on sermon occupations for organists, eh eh pcnd? :P:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... and just about as weak as the thread on sermon occupations for organists, eh eh pcnd?  :P  :(

 

 

Well, I would have to disagree there, Jeremy!

 

I think that discussing useful occupations for enduring sermons is a good idea. However, as long as the staircase is not constructed of cast-iron* I really cannot see why this should be interesting. But that is just me.

 

:P

 

 

 

* They always hurt: shins, head, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Godammit!  I never should have got involved with that American academic who taught English.

Actually I was taught at junior school (in England) to use double quotes and to reserve single quotes for quotations within quotations. All the older people I know use this convention. Publishers, however may not. The Oxford Book of Style (the successor to Hart's Rules) recommends single quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I was taught at junior school (in England) to use double quotes and to reserve single quotes for quotations within quotations. All the older people I know use this convention. Publishers, however may not. The Oxford Book of Style (the successor to Hart's Rules) recommends single quotes.

 

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

 

 

That's what the American said I should do, but as he'd never heard the word boffin until I used it....well...says it all, doesn't it?

 

:(

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I was taught at junior school (in England) to use double quotes and to reserve single quotes for quotations within quotations. All the older people I know use this convention. Publishers, however may not. The Oxford Book of Style (the successor to Hart's Rules) recommends single quotes.

 

I was taught in the same manner, Vox. However, I was referring to current usage. As you mention, a number of publishers seem to have adopted the method of employing single commas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example: "This organ was built in the 1950s" does not need an apostrophe, whereas "The 1950's method was to introduce lower wind pressures" does require an apostrophe. In the same way, "The '50s" also requires an apostrophe. In short, the first is plural, the second possessive and the third an abbreviation.*

 

 

 

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

 

What's wrong with "This organ was built in the nineteen-fifties" and "The method used in the nineteen-fifties, was to introduce lower wind-pressures"...huh?

 

I don't actually think that the nineteen-fifties could do anything of their own, without human assistance.

 

:(

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
===================

 

What's wrong with "This organ was built in the nineteen-fifties" and "The method used in the nineteen-fifties, was to introduce lower wind-pressures"...huh?

 

I don't actually think that the nineteen-fifties could do anything of their own, without human assistance.

 

:(

 

MM

 

 

Absolutely nothing, MM.

 

Incidentally, you have not yet explained why I have epaulettes and you do not. I just wanted to know.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely nothing, MM.

 

Incidentally, you have not yet explained why I have epaulettes and you do not. I just wanted to know.

 

:(

 

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

 

 

You deserve them, and I don't perhaps?

 

I'm not quite sure, coming to think of it.

 

If I were to refer to mine own board name, I think I would have to use "MM" as if I were quoting the point of reference within the organ which is the Mander Discussion Board. However, when signing off, I simply use MM, which is an integral part of my post, as it stands, within the context of the discussion board as an integral whole, of which that particular post is but a component part.

 

Thus, with reference to the posting of another, I would normally use the (old fashioned) double epaulettes for the name of that same soul, in order to distinguish them as a component part of the aforementioned publication which is the Mander Discussion Board.

 

It is, of course, the difference between a letter to "The Times," where the writer simply signs their name, which is then printed as it is written, but if that person has an acronym, pseudonym or any other 'nym,' then the 'nym' would become a "nym" if a retropsective reply made reference to that same "nym" as being party to the contents of a previously dated publication; though not withstanding that, the use of the single epauletted 'nym' would be acceptable to those of a more contemporary disposition, while those of a more classical disposition would continue to use the double epauletted "nym" by force of habit and/or abject laziness.

 

It is my view that a 'nym' is a "nym" by any other nym, but clearly, some people want to know these things in much the same way that soldiers like to know where minefields are located.

 

It's just Hinglish man, innit?

 

:P

 

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
=====================

You deserve them, and I don't perhaps?

 

I'm not quite sure, coming to think of it.

 

If I were to refer to mine own board name, I think I would have to use "MM" as if I were quoting the point of reference within the organ which is the Mander Discussion Board. However, when signing off, I simply use MM, which is an integral part of my post, as it stands, within the context of the discussion board as an integral whole, of which that particular post is but a component part.

 

Thus, with reference to the posting of another, I would normally use the (old fashioned) double epaulettes for the name of that same soul, in order to distinguish them as a component part of the aforementioned publication which is the Mander Discussion Board.

 

It is, of course, the difference between a letter to "The Times," where the writer simply signs their name, which is then printed as it is written, but if that person has an acronym, pseudonym or any other 'nym,' then the 'nym' would become a "nym" if a retropsective reply made reference to that same "nym" as being party to the contents of a previously dated publication; though not withstanding that, the use of the single epauletted 'nym' would be acceptable to those of a more contemporary disposition, while those of a more classical disposition would continue to use the double epauletted "nym" by force of habit and/or abject laziness.

 

It is my view that a 'nym' is a "nym" by any other nym, but clearly, some people want to know these things in much the same way that soldiers like to know where minefields are located.

 

It's just Hinglish man, innit?

 

;)

 

MM

 

 

OK, fine - now I am happy.

 

Do I get to keep the double epaulettes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of the last page.........

 

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

 

 

Come, come!

 

Calm yourself, I beseech you!

 

 

Are you sure that this section is less interesting that discussing the type of material used to construct the stairs to various organ lofts? (Or, apparently, the sermon occupations of habitués to this board....)

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wanted an English lesson then I’d contact my old English teacher who was, incidentally, Humphrey Clucas. At the time (he was at Winchester) I had no idea what he did outside school.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I wanted an English lesson then I’d contact my old English teacher who was, incidentally, Humphrey Clucas.  At the time (he was at Winchester) I had no idea what he did outside school.

 

;)

 

 

So there we have it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was taught in the same manner, Vox. However, I was referring to current usage. As you mention, a number of publishers seem to have adopted the method of employing single commas.

 

They're not commas!

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're not commas!

 

John

 

 

No, I know - I am afraid that I was too lazy to refer to them as quotation marks.

 

However, it is correct to refer to them as 'inverted commas'.

 

We should probably cease this discussion forthwith - apart from the fact that we have rather lost the plot of the thread, I fear that 'Phil T' will lose the will to live, should we continue....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should probably cease this discussion forthwith - apart from the fact that we have rather lost the plot of the thread, I fear that 'Phil T' will lose the will to live, should we continue....

 

You Sir are a Scholar and a Gentleman. I feel the life force returning and I thank you from the bottom of my uneducated heart.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...