You are not the boss of me - Grammar help

[Robo410]

another grammar policeman here ...

 

[suzyQ3]

Sorry, there are NO exceptions to the lack of apostrophes in plurals.

You should mind your Ps and Qs, and cross all your Ts and dot all your Is. And you should line up in 2s and 3s, and not use too many &s.

Ah, but Daisy, your own example belies your absolute. Your "Is" is not clear and is actually considered a punctuation error.

For clarity, the plural of lowercase abbreviations with internal periods (c.o.d.) and lowercase letters require an apostrophe, as do the capital letters A, I, M, and U. Uppercase abbreviations and acronyms are clearly read without the apostrophe.

The plural of words beings used simply as words usually don't require an apostrophe (ifs, and, and buts) unless there might be confusion (too many "that's" in the paragraph).

Numbers (digits) do not require an apostrophe.

Having said all that, some old-fashioned grammarians still sanction the use of the apostrophe to form the plurals of all letters, abbreviations, and numbers. Newer style dictates its use only for functional necessity.

So the upshot is that you are not wrong if you choose always to use the apostrophe to form these particular plurals. I prefer the newer style myself and use only those that are required for clarity.

 

[YT2095]

I Think (and I could be wrong), the problem is right at the end with the last 2 words "of me"

if we think of the word "me" and the types of words that go before it normaly "to" "from" "past" "over" etc...
they imply an action almost, "ME" is also quite third party sounding too.

the "OF" doesn`t mix well with it as a result, "Of MINE" is cool, "to ME" is also cool.

I know what I`m trying to get across, but it`s very hard to explain ))
an English teacher Im not!

 

[GB]

Since this has become a general discussion of grammar, I feel I need to share with all you grammar lovers a passage from one of my favorite books, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe by Douglas Adams. I hope you find this as entertaining as I do.

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe is one of the most extraordinary ventures in the entire history of catering. It has been built on the fragmented remains of ... it will be built on the fragmented ... that is to say it will have been built by this time, and indeed has been -

One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is also no problem about changing the course of history - the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.

The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you for instance how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations whilst you are actually travelling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own father or mother.

Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up: and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe is one of the most extraordinary ventures in the entire history of catering.

It is built on the fragmented remains of an eventually ruined planet which is (wioll haven be) enclosed in a vast time bubble and projected forward in time to the precise moment of the End of the Universe.

This is, many would say, impossible.

In it, guests take (willan on-take) their places at table and eat (willan on-eat) sumptuous meals whilst watching (willing watchen) the whole of creation explode around them.

This is, many would say, equally impossible.

You can arrive (mayan arivan on-when) for any sitting you like without prior (late fore-when) reservation because you can book retrospectively, as it were when you return to your own time. (you can have on-book haventa forewhen presooning returningwenta retrohome.)

This is, many would now insist, absolutely impossible.

At the Restaurant you can meet and dine with (mayan meetan con with dinan on when) a fascinating cross-section of the entire population of space and time.

This, it can be explained patiently, is also impossible.

You can visit it as many times as you like (mayan on-visit re- onvisiting ... and so on - for further tense-corrections consult Dr Streetmentioner's book) and be sure of never meeting yourself, because of the embarrassment this usually causes.

This, even if the rest were true, which it isn't, is patently impossible, say the doubters.

All you have to do is deposit one penny in a savings account in your own era, and when you arrive at the End of Time the operation of compound interest means that the fabulous cost of your meal has been paid for. This, many claim, is not merely impossible but clearly insane, which is why the advertising executives of the star system of Bastablon came up with this slogan: "If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?"

OK back to discussing grammar

 

[Andy M.]

I have to go lie down now.

 

[XeniA]

another grammar policeman here ...

Robo, is this meant to be as rudely critical as it sounds? To whom was it aimed?

 

[Veloce]

"You are (or are not) the X of me" is gramatically fine. It is just not standard idiomatic English. The standard form is "You are (or are not) my X." We don't say "You are the teacher of me," we say "You are my teacher." We don't say "You are not the mother of me," we say "You are not my mother."

 

[GB]

Ayrton, I took Robo's comment to mean that he considers himself a grammar policeman.

 

[boufa06]

I have to go lie down now.

 

[Robo410]

Robo, is this meant to be as rudely critical as it sounds? To whom was it aimed?

No, it is not. I am a high school English teacher and my students call me the Grammar Police. I was reading the comments in this thread and one of them was about all the grammar knowledge being shared. I was just adding to that. Obviously, my terseness led to misunderstanding, and for that I appologize.

 

[suzyQ3]

No, it is not. I am a high school English teacher and my students call me the Grammar Police. I was reading the comments in this thread and one of them was about all the grammar knowledge being shared. I was just adding to that. Obviously, my terseness led to misunderstanding, and for that I appologize.

Thanks for the clarification, Robo. I, too, misunderstood and thought you were referring to another poster.

I don't know about you, but I have been very careful not to set myself up as the Grand Duchess of Everything That is Grammar. Of course, I have always taught adults, and if they even get a whiff of such pretension, they'll spend the majority of time looking for **chinks in the armor.

So I'd always tell them that I can answer the vast majority of their questions involving grammar or punctuation with certainty but that if one of them caught me off guard, I would try my hardest to find out the right one and bring it to them, with humility. That seemed to work best for me.

**We could do a whole thread on idioms and confused word pairs and how often they are either not known or misunderstood. I actually had to teach a whole session on this topic so that my future court reporters would not transcribe something like "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" or the infamous "bird in the poof" for "burden of proof" that ended up in a finished court transcript.

 

[Dove]

I would like to see an end to this thread. Someone is going to have hurt feeling if this continues.

I make more mistakes on here than anyone and I sure hope I don't get picked on. This site helps me keep my sanity..if you are new here and don't understand that...then take the time to read my past posts.
Marge~Dove

 

[suzyQ3]

I would like to see an end to this thread. Someone is going to have hurt feeling if this continues.

I make more mistakes on here than anyone and I sure hope I don't get picked on. This site helps me keep my sanity..if you are new here and don't understand that...then take the time to read my past posts.
Marge~Dove

Did I miss something? Has anyone been abusive on this thread? The one post that appeared to be was actually not at all, and that was clarified by the poster himself.

Please, please, let's not close a discussion unless it's absolutely necessary because of a violation of site rules.

After all, there is ALWAYS the POSSIBILITY of hurt feelings. If they occur, then let's deal with it.

 

[Dove]

Then go for it..just keep on letting me make mistakes..

 

[Barbara L]

Then go for it..just keep on letting me make mistakes..

All I know is whether Grandma Dove says, "I am taking you behind the woodshed" or "I is taking you behind the woodshed," I'd better get behind the woodshed!

Barbara

 

[Constance]

English was one of my majors in college, and my mother was a school teacher, so it shouldn't be surprising that I have alway been very picky about speaking correctly.
Thing being, I have also worked with the public most of my life. There are certain phrases and expressions that fall into the category that is given "poetic license".

The phrase, more accuratly quoted as, "You ain't the boss'a ME," I believe, falls into that catagory. To correct the English would take away from the raw meaning of the phrase.

 

[StirBlue]

"You are not the boss of me" is typically used by preschoolers.
When and why have you heard a 3-4-5 year old say this?

example: Mom is checking out groceries and a stranger standing behind your cart tells your child to sit down (meaning to stay seated in the cart seat) or tells your child not to touch stuff on the shelves in the checkout isle.

This child knows who is responsible for them (child) and who makes the rules for them.

What could they say instead: butt out!

 

[Andy M.]

... "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes" or the infamous "bird in the poof" for "burden of proof" that ended up in a finished court transcript.

My favorite came from an interoffice memo that included a list of issues that had caused problems. The last item on the list was, "add in for item" in place of ad infinitum.

 

[XeniA]

No, it is not. I am a high school English teacher and my students call me the Grammar Police. I was reading the comments in this thread and one of them was about all the grammar knowledge being shared. I was just adding to that. Obviously, my terseness led to misunderstanding, and for that I appologize.

GB, Robo, Suzy -- thanks for clarifying. Robo, as you know from my PM, I knew there was a possibility I'd got it wrong. Sorry!

 

[XeniA]

Since this has become a general discussion of grammar, I feel I need to share with all you grammar lovers a passage from one of my favorite books, The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe by Douglas Adams. I hope you find this as entertaining as I do....OK back to discussing grammar

As long as the whole book doesn't go on like that!! (Reminds me of trying to read "Watership Down" where one has to learn bunny language to proceed. I think I read the first 10 or so pages several times, then left it for good. I guess I just don't do bunny ...)