Grammar & spelling lessons and pet peeves

p. 14

Jim,

Thanks for pointing out the single error in the new issue of my magazine. Some people only look for errors and I try to print something for everyone.

Can you please point me to another English language bonsai magazine which is better edited, has fewer grammatical and punctual errors, better designed printed and has perfect color quality? And more importantly, is more horticulturally and technically correct which brings new information to the worldwide bonsai community?

But more importantly, you (and hopefully more) paid subscribers are actually reading International BONSAI, and I'd like to thank you for your enthusiastic quest for bonsai knowledge.

If anyone would like to personally experience the insignificant error, you can easily subscribe by going to my website:

www.internationalbonsai.com

Bill

PS: By the way, how did you like the new articles on small bonsai, deciduous bonsai and Mr. Kimura's new "Fun Bonsai Classroom" series?

William N. Valavanis wrote: Some people only look for errors and I try to print something for everyone.

That's a classic!
Iris

William N. Valavanis wrote: has fewer grammatical and punctual errors...

When someone uses the correct form in this context I am always impressed. If the rest of the magazine is up to this standard I may subscribe.



Oh, and to save people googling, the use of "punctual" is perfectly correct.

Can you please point me to another English language bonsai magazine which is better edited, has fewer grammatical and punctual errors, better designed printed and has perfect color quality?

ABSOLUTELY not; there are none -- which is why this one stood out -- that and its totally coincidental appearance at the same time we were talking about misplaced apostrophe errors -- as in plurals. I'd be very surprised if there were another in that issue.

And this one is actually understandable. There are some who pluralize individual numbers with an apostrophe -- the 30's and the 40's, etc. I'm not among them, but it is acceptable. I can see how converting to the spelled-out word might carry the apostrophe with it (though I'm of the school who, in formal writing spell out one through ten, and use numbers for the rest, a la the AP Style book back when I was a newspaper writer-editor.

A note: Our rather blunt talk about the apostrophe NOT being used in plurals appears to have fallen upon deaf ears (or eyes).

By the way, it was nice to see that excellent photo of Rob Kempinski's buttonwood. Mastodon Roaring, in that issue and that absolutely stupendous twisted pomegranate in 2012 #1.

Fiona: I can highly recommend the magazine. I've been a subscriber for a few years now and have bought a number of back issues on key subjects, too.)

[Bonsai Today had a couple of errors per page. We won't diss the association magazines; they're all-volunteer run and I take that into account.]

JimLewis wrote:
A note: Our rather blunt talk about the apostrophe NOT being used in plurals appears to have fallen upon deaf ears (or eyes).

Trouble is, the more often people see it written incorrectly, the more they believe they are seeing the correct version. It's like trying to teach my students not to say/write "I seen", "I done" or the hideous "I've wrote".

JimLewis wrote: We won't diss the association magazines; they're all-volunteer run and I take that into account.]

You might find the occasional one in my magazine - but it will be the only one, and it will be a typo. And irrespective of that I will still feel crap when I find it. It's as far as I am concerned a matter of having a bit of pride, taking care and paying attention to detail. Just like we do for our trees.

fiona wrote:Trouble is, the more often people see it written incorrectly, the more they believe they are seeing the correct version. It's like trying to teach my students not to say/write "I seen", "I done" or the hideous "I've wrote".

Fiona,

Bad habits build over time. Honestly, I didn't even notice the bad ones I developed over the years! If anything good came out of this, it is the awareness that it brought to myself. Time to be more conscious.

Marcus...you got me there LOL and guilty as charged. Anyway, I am busy collecting more plants and spring is here (Austin, TX) . My stumps/plants should keep me a bit busy and spend less time online . I was actually potting 2 newly collected boxwood bushes/hedge until 10pm last night (free as usual). Tonight I have to trim them back further.

From my thread...

JimLewis wrote:

marcus watts wrote:
bonsai's = just wrong

You are right.

The first is absolutely wrong, but is, for some reason, getting more and more common. I even see billboards using it.

I thought you can have have an apostrophe for possessive. As in my example... "I guess I don't believe in ramification for ramification's sake. It is ramification for the (over all) bonsai's sake for me."

So this is not acceptable and is wrong? I am seriously looking for an answer here. Thank you.

What you wrote (bonsai's) is perfectly correct in the context - the use of the apostrophe to denote possession is one of the two main uses of it. I can't find your original post so I assume someone quoted your word out of context.

You think the problem of British vs American spelling is a headache? I was writing something about Allegany County, NY. Turns out AOL only recognizes the Pennsylvania spelling, Allegheny.
Iris

fiona wrote:What you wrote (bonsai's) is perfectly correct in the context - the use of the apostrophe to denote possession is one of the two main uses of it. I can't find your original post so I assume someone quoted your word out of context.

Fiona,

It is here. https://ibonsaiclub.forumotion.com/t9231-ramificationis-there-such-thing-as-too-much

IT'S EASY: IT'S DEFINITELY.

Not definately, definateley, definatley and certainly not defiantly - that last one is an altogether different word.

And that's definite.

By the way, how come the tree is Scots pine but the dog is Scottish terrier?
Iris

Good question and who knows - I certainly haven't found a definitive answer. My own hypothesis is that, like so many other grammatical/orthograhical things, it is either a hypercorrection ot simply through usage. Although historically speaking my compatriots could be referred to as "Scotch", it is no longer recognised as the adjective of choice and indeed we get irritated at being called it. (Nearly as irritated as when you guys over there refer to the UK as England ). Scots pine is perhaps just a hypercorrection of Scotch. It's a strange 'un as Scots these days is only ever found as a noun - either the plural of Scot (a native of Scotland) or the name of the formal Scots language (as opposed to English with regional accents of one sort or another). I would only ever describe myself with the adjective Scottish. Or if I'm being particularly nationalistic - Albannach.

Gu brath.

For Jim and Iris:

From A.Word.A.Day:

We should not write so that it is possible for the reader to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us. -Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus), rhetorician (c. 35-100)

John Quinn wrote:From A.Word.A.Day:

We should not write so that it is possible for the reader to understand us, but so that it is impossible for him to misunderstand us. -Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus), rhetorician (c. 35-100)

I feel I shall be using this in my Writing outcome lessons from now on.

this thread is excelent - the above quote quite amazing from so long ago, and from a scholar with a cool name too .

I tries to look into the puzzling pine tree....scots pine, scotch pine etc and good old wiki says this, with actual references to some of the info rather than just total urban folklore !

""The name derives from Latin pinus via French pin (pine); in the past (pre-18th century) this species was more often known as "Scots Fir" or "Scotch Fir" (from Danish fyr), but "fir" is restricted to Abies and Pseudotsuga in modern English.

Other names sometimes used include Riga Pine and Norway Pine, and Mongolian Pine for var. mongolica. "Scotch Pine" is another variant of the common name, used mostly in North America.[26]

The timber from it is also called red deal or yellow deal.

Another name, although less common, is European Redwood [27]""

Quoted from wikipedia, for which i appologise

Regards Marcus

(this is THE forum to top all others i think, not only are the trees good but our grammar is improving at the same rate)

Of course, Mr. Quintilianus was speaking Latin.

I used to collect writing quotations and, of course, there are a lot of them, writers being who they are.

This has been fastened to whatever wall is behind my typewriter (now computer) for almost 50 years. When I write -- which is much less often today than in the past -- I do my best to adhere to it.

When you've got a thing to say,
Say it! Don't take take half a day. . . .
Life is short -- a fleeting vapor --
don't you fill the whole blamed paper
with a tale which, at a pinch,
Could be cornered in an inch!
Boil her down until she simmers.
Polish her until she glimmers.

Joel Chandler Harris
Advice to Writers for the Daily Press.

Here's one for Fiona. I'm reading a Charlie Chan detective novel, written about 1930 (by an American). A man from Scotland is introduced as Scotch.
By the way, does anyone know why the Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company chose the names Scotch Tape and Scotchgard?
Iris

re the Charlie Chan novel, "Scotch" as a reference to nationality would have been in common usage at the time the novel was written. Nor was that usage restricted to our transatlantic cousins - someone as quintessentially English as Agatha Christie uses it too.

HOWEVER, much as I dislike the term, I'd prefer you guys over there to say "Scotch" than to do what too many of you do which is refer to the UK as "England" and consequently call me English. I can't watch the movie Mrs Doubtfire because of its persistence in misusing the terms England and English - especially as the Mrs Doubtfire character is quite clearly speaking with a Scottish accent. Bah!


re Scotch tape - no idea but thank you Iris for giving me a lightbulb moment as to why the company is called 3M.

All you had to do was ask . . .<G>

The brandname Scotch came about while Richard Drew (its inventor) was testing his first masking tape to determine how much adhesive he needed to add. The bodyshop painter became frustrated with the sample masking tape and exclaimed, "Take this tape back to those Scotch bosses of yours and tell them to put more adhesive on it!" The name was soon applied to the entire line of 3M tapes.

http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/Scotch_Tape.htm

BTW, he played the banjo, so he must have been a nice guy.

Patsy Sherman was the inventor (inventress????? UGH!) of Scotchguard. See:

http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/a/Scotchgard.htm