 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009A headline on Headlines
Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line "Settle an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether the expression "one in four businesses" was to be construed as singular or plural. Some people disagreed with others. This week on the Headlines segment of the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, there was a headline which a viewer had apparently sent in because the viewer disagreed with the headline writer on this point. It read: One in for kids drops out of high school Leno's comment was "Gee, I wonder if they go to work for this newspaper." The thing is that the person who sent it in had underlined the words "kids" and "drops", as if indicating that the singular verb was an error of agreement. And when Leno read the headline aloud, he slightly emphasized the two words, so apparently he also thought that was wrong. *Nothing else was said about the headline.* Of course, Leno regularly states on these segments that he is dyslexic and a terrible speller. But...! By the way, one of the other items on this Headlines segment was a report relating to a bank robbery in Providence, RI, where the robber handed a note to the teller demanding $50, *$30*, and $20 bills.  SignatureMark Brader "You can stop laughing now. Toronto Well, maybe you *can't*, but you *may*." msb@vex.net -- Rick Burger My text in this article is in the public domain. > Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line "Settle > an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether the expression [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Of course, Leno regularly states on these segments that he is dyslexic > and a terrible speller. But...! So, is the spelling mistake in the headline yours or Leno's? Will. >> Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line >> "Settle an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > So, is the spelling mistake in the headline yours or Leno's? It was the headline writer's, as I recall. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > billrigby wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > It was the headline writer's, as I recall. The headline writer wrote "for" for "four"? SignatureMaria C. > > billrigby wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > because the viewer disagreed with the headline writer on this > > > > point. It read: One in for kids drops out of high school > > > So, is the spelling mistake in the headline yours or Leno's? > > > > It was the headline writer's, as I recall. > > The headline writer wrote "for" for "four"? Yes. I guess I wasn't paying that much attention, as I thought that was the point of it being sent in. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >>> billrigby wrote: >>>>> Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line >>>>> "Settle an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Yes. I guess I wasn't paying that much attention, as I thought that > was the point of it being sent in. As for the aforementioned (in another posting) underlining of some words in the headline -- Leno's staff does that, I'm sure. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> billrigby wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >As for the aforementioned (in another posting) underlining of some words in >the headline -- Leno's staff does that, I'm sure. Thinking I'd investigate the etymology of the interesting but old-fashioned word, "aforementioned", I couldn't find it in the OED. Why is that, I wonder? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> billrigby wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >old-fashioned word, "aforementioned", I couldn't find it in the OED. >Why is that, I wonder? Interesting. I looked it up hoping that I was not being led astray as with "Gullible isn't in the dictionary". "Aforementioned" is not as you say in the OED, but "forementioned" is. fore{sm}mention v. To mention beforehand. 1660 N. INGELO Bent. & Urania (1682) II. 12 They found themselves sick of the Diseases which he had forementioned. Ibid. II. 143 For the Reason which I foremention'd. Hence {smm}fore{sm}mentioned ppl. a. previously mentioned. Also ellipt. 1587 GOLDING De Mornay ix. 133 The forementioned Chaos. 1631 GOUGE God's Arrows I. xiv. 19 Yet hath God his wayes and means to deliver the righteous in the forementioned cases. 1697 LOCKE in Fox Bourne Life II. xiii. 383 In the forementioned new law to be enacted. 1750 tr. Leonardus' Mirr. Stones 145 There are other species..which with the fore-mentioned, make up the number twelve. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Thinking I'd investigate the etymology of the interesting but > old-fashioned word, "aforementioned", I couldn't find it in the OED. > Why is that, I wonder? Dunno, but it's in 19 other dictionaries -- including the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage. See http://www.onelook.com/ SignatureMaria C. > "Skitt" wrote: >>>>> billrigby wrote: >>>>>>> Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line >>>>>>> "Settle an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > old-fashioned word, "aforementioned", I couldn't find it in the OED. > Why is that, I wonder? Are you sure it isn't there? It's in the COED, as is the prefix afore-. SignatureSkitt (AmE) [...] > Thinking I'd investigate the etymology of the interesting but > old-fashioned word, "aforementioned", I couldn't find it in the OED. > Why is that, I wonder? Because "afore" is a still-productive prefix, so (I surmise) there could be too many examples to list separately. You'll find "aforementioned" under /afore/ adv. D.1.b. in the online version, and it's probably in the same place on the CD. SignatureMike. >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >under /afore/ adv. D.1.b. in the online version, and it's probably in >the same place on the CD. All is explaioned. I searched the online OED for "aforementioned" and was told "There are no results". It is where you say but as "-mentioned". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > It is where you say but as "-mentioned". That's followed by three examples of the full extression. SignatureMike. >>[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >It is where you say but as "-mentioned". Aha. I appreciate everyone's help in finding it. Getting back to my etymology question, the OED has it first appearing in Golding's "De Mornay" in 1587. I had thought the word was much, much older or its etymology wouldn't have aroused my attention. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> billrigby wrote: >>>> Not long ago we had a thread (under the misleading subject line >>>> "Settle an argument about prepositional phrases") about whether the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > The headline writer wrote "for" for "four"? That's what I recall. It was the only thing that caught my eye with that particular headline. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> billrigby wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > That's what I recall. It was the only thing that caught my eye with > that particular headline. Something a bit odd to my mind is that "four" and "for" are often regarded as homophones, but as I say them (and I suspect most others also) they have little in common apart from the f at the beginning. I'd only pronounce "for" like "four" if I wanted to emphasize it. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden: > Something a bit odd to my mind is that "four" and "for" are often > regarded as homophones, but as I say them (and I suspect most others > also) they have little in common apart from the f at the beginning. > > I'd only pronounce "for" like "four" if I wanted to emphasize it. I agree. And the same goes for another preposition/numeral pair: "to" and "two". SignatureMark Brader "Things are getting too standard around here. Toronto Time to innovate!" msb@vex.net -- Ian Darwin and David Keldsen > Athel Cornish-Bowden: >> Something a bit odd to my mind is that "four" and "for" are often [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I agree. And the same goes for another preposition/numeral pair: > "to" and "two". Same-same "in/inn", maybe even "by/bye". Then "or/oar". And, for that matter, "flaw/floor", "haw/whore", etc in my non-rhotic speech. SignatureMike. On 8 Jan, 18:18, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acorn...@ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote: > >>> billrigby wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I'd only pronounce "for" like "four" if I wanted to emphasize it. I had to think about that. And then I realised that, yes, I'd pronounce it - in the context of a sentence - as "fuh" (or something like that). But if you handed me a piece of paper with just the word "for" on it, and asked me to read it aloud, I'd say "four". Mike M |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.