I’ve always thought that ‘canon’ was a scriptorial work - a religious law, if you will.
Also - Canon is best known as a brand.
Then there’s the form of music most famously demonstrated in Pachelbel’s Canon.
1 Like
Not to overlook …
1 Like
I like to call it the ‘Make me Cry Thingy’.
1 Like
It’s not a genitive.
One of my favourite stupid rules is the one say you’re not supposed to ever split an infinitive.
I reckon it’s because it’s a rule in the European languages like French, Spanish and German for a very good reason.
It’s because their infinitives are single words, while English seems to be the only main language with two words.
It’s not an ordinary genitive: it’s a partitive genitive but, as you said, it’s unnecessary in this context.
Even though I know absolutely everything, i’ve never heard of a partitive genitive.
2 Likes
There are a lot of stupid rules like this one in English expression. They mostly date from the end of the 18th and the start of the 19th century when classical Latin held sway in universities and upper class schools in England. The pedagogues of that period forced Latinate rules onto the English language in an attempt to raise its status — to create a “High” English along the lines, perhaps, of the old High German which for many of them represented the language of their parents or grandparents in the courts of protestant Europe, so that the upper classes would speak a version of English which was of a higher status that that used by the hoi poloi.
Splitting infinitives should be avoided where possible, if for no other reason, because it’s ugly. In other words it’s a stylistic rule, not a grammatical imperative. “He told me to quickly go to the bank and get the money out,” is ugly. There is a better word order, viz., “He told me to go quickly…” which is not ugly and is better because the ideas in the sentence are expressed in a logical order.
The absolute nonsense of forbidding the ending of a sentence with a preposition is another prime example of artificial enforced linguistic snobbery.
Take the classic clause, “Up with which I will not put.” To start with, “up” in this example is not even a preposition, but is a verbal particle which must not be separated from the verb.
“With which I will not put up,” is okay, almost - but it’s still a prime example of an awkward latinate clause created for no other reason than in a snobbish attempt to make the language high-brow. “Which I will not put up with” is correct, natural English and should be actively encouraged !
There are only two reasons for using “correct” English:
-
to express oneself clearly and plainly while minimising any chance of being misunderstood; and
-
to develop a style which is pleasing to the ear as well as being easily comprehensible.
Of these two, the first is the really important one. Ordinary people are fully entitled to make grammatical errors, to speak roughly, to happily use a limited, functional vocabulary without great artistic, linguistic flourishes — as long as they get their meaning across easily and successfully. That’s life. No problem. I don’t care if someone spells incorrectly, uses bad grammar and so on — as long as their meaning is clear ! For most people, it’s not the way they make their livings. Their expertise is in other areas — areas where I’m ignorant and can’t function. A prime example is motor mechanics.
When my car needs work done I take it to a qualified mechanic and pay him to service it and fix any problems he discovers along the way. It’s his job to know how my car works in order to fix it.
In the same way it’s the job of journalists to know how the English language works, and to express themselves clearly and stylistically in it, with correct spelling, grammar, punctuation and an attractive style. Very many of them don’t, because they can’t — they don’t have the first clue of how the engine of the English language works.
The journalists who don’t know grammar and have a limited vocabulary really give me the pinks. FFS, they make their living from using the English language, yet far too many of them are pig-ignorant of its workings !
Into the cannon with the ignorant journoes… Next in the queue after them will be secondary school English teachers, but I’ll save that rave for another day.
1 Like
“Canon” has several meanings. I just picked one of them for simplicity’s sake.
Too many use there when they’re not sure whether it should be their or there. There’s always a conundrum with these.
I don’t think it’s any sort of a genitive. A partitive genitive is a genitive indicating part of a whole, eg the core of an apple, the heart of the team.
Big of a deal is nothing like that. To say something is a big deal is to say it’s important; big is an adjective describing the noun deal. To say something is not that big a deal is to say it’s not a very big deal, ie it’s a way of qualifying the adjective.
1 Like
Sewage
Sewerage
They are very different things and people use them interchangeably. Gives me the ■■■■■.
3 Likes
Try and go -> try TO go
Essendon always loose -> Essendon always LOSE
Amount of people/games/etc -> NUMBER of games (if you count count it, it’s number not amount)
Some use it interchangeably with water supply, too…
2 Likes
Good on you for looking it up.
The genitive you are objecting to is a partitive, despite your objection. The version of the expression you prefer may perhaps be described as “a way of qualifying the adjective” (although adjectives qualify nouns, not the opposite) - but as soon as the “of” is introduced the whole construction of the sentence is altered — which doesn’t mean it is incorrect: it is just different.
It becomes a partitive genitive which is perhaps in the wrong place, and which is quite unnecessary, but the construction is still that of a partitive genitive. When the “of” is included, the adjective “big” takes on the function of a noun (cf. the Good, the Bad and the Ugly) followed by the partitive genitive. It is certainly not the most ideal construction, and is unnecessary, given the simpler alternative which you prefer; but why make a fuss about it ?
Does the addition of the “of” obscure the sense of the sentence in any way ? If not, leave it alone.
1 Like
Should obviously be without the apostrophe since it has a plural meaning (group of u21 players) versus a possessive meaning (what is belonging to the players??)
3 Likes
Always bothered me.
I’m going with - since ‘Under 21’ is a category /name and also not possessive, no apostrophe. The confusion is because of the numerical way it’s written.
Group of 10s / tens
3 Likes
Sorry, but no. It’s not a genitive of any type, and that is why the “of” is not only superfluous, but wrong.
I fully agree with your long (and nicely-written) post above about split infinitives, the purpose of teaching English and the role of journalism; but on this one, no.
Dude.
Have you not heard air on a g string or adagio in g minor?
Canon can be positively chipper!