another grammar policeman here ...
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?"
Robo, is this meant to be as rudely critical as it sounds? To whom was it aimed?Robo410 said:another grammar policeman here ...
Ayrton said:Robo, is this meant to be as rudely critical as it sounds? To whom was it aimed?
Thanks for the clarification, Robo. I, too, misunderstood and thought you were referring to another poster.Robo410 said: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.
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.Dove said: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
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!Dove said:Then go for it..just keep on letting me make mistakes..![]()
suzyQ3 said:... "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.
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!Robo410 said: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 said: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![]()