User talk:Bill

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Not gonna rest till you like this word)
(→Not gonna rest till you like this word)
Line 64: Line 64:
Warmest regards,
Warmest regards,
<br/>[[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
<br/>[[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Wow.  ''Wow.''  My gut response was to deploy the old "just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it's the best choice" argument, but I'm glad I didn't.  I thought about what you were saying, did a little more research to confirm it, and found out that ''I have been flat wrong''.  Like, f'rever, man.  Wow.  It's pretty humbling (and embarrassing).  But thank you for taking the time to make your point so clearly, saving me the further embarrassment of fighting a losing battle!
 +
 +
: And the plot thickens.  Not only did I learn that ''till'' is right and '' 'til'' is wrong, but I found a very interesting (if overly technical) [http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/french/as-sa/ASSA-No8/YT1.html paper] asserting that ''till'' and ''until'' are not true synonyms, but rather have subtle differences.  In a nutshell, one can assert that ''till'' tends to focus on the process (the waiting), whereas ''until'' tends to emphasize the result (that which ends the waiting).  After going through the author's real-world examples, I am convinced.  This is why we tend to say, "Peel those potatoes until you have a full bushel, Private!" (emphasis on the result), but "I'll have you peeling potatoes till Hell freezes over, Private!" (emphasis on the process).  All of which provides even more evidence that one word is not a clipped form of the other.
 +
 +
: Thanks for educating me!  I will probably never again be able to type "until" without stopping to think whether I should instead use "till".
 +
 +
: {{User:Bill Martinson/sig}} 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:36, 2 December 2005

Contents

Subpage

Hey there Bill. Glad to have you aboard. I know Rogue Leader has already welcomed you, but I also want to drop a note to say hi. It looks like the information below is the beginnings of a page that you plan on creating. If that's the case, then I have a suggestion for you: You should build pages on a user subpage (for example, "User:Bill Martinson/Prank Calls"), and then when you're ready, use the move button at the top to transfer your page to its final home. The advantage to using a subpage is that this page can be used for user discussion, such as this message. Incidentally, I learned something about "comprise" today, and I have you to thank for it. — It's dot com 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the tip ... I was actually building the real page with its actual title, but naturally I didn't want to actally save it until it was finished. Your way is much better, as I can save periodically while I'm working, and (as you point out) I can benefit from others' feedback. Thanks! — Bill Martinson 18:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a method to automatically list subpages. If, however, you happened to forget what they are, you could look them up in Special:Allpages under the User namespace. This link would take you straight to them. But as far as listing them here in your user space, you'll have to do that manually. By the way, once you create a user page, your subpages will automatically have a backlink to your main page. — It's dot com 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Category listings

New Question: I moved my page from User:Bill Martinson/Obviously Phony Aliases to Obviously Phony Aliases, but the category pages (for Running Gags and Lists) still point to the original page (which is now a redirect). This works, of course, but it looks thoroughly awful in the category lists. I tried to fix this by looking for the right templates to edit, but the categories mechanism doesn't seem to use templates (as best I can tell). So it would seem that either the move function is not really the best way to do this, or there is something about it I don't understand. — Bill Martinson 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Found the workaround: delete the category tags from the article, save, then put them back in. I guess in the future I'll have to keep such tags as plain text until I move the article to its final destination. — Bill Martinson 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. I know there's a simpler way, but when I tried to test it, I couldn't recreate the situation (even though this has happened to me before). Oh, well. As long as it works now. Rock, rock on! — It's dot com 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Every day

Ooh, it really bugs me when people confuse everyday for every day. And then I sometimes see every-day in place of everyday, in news articles! Does no one speak English anymore?! Anyway, high fives. — It's dot com 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice to find a kindred spirit! — Bill Martinson 04:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think you'll find grammar 'n' usage enthusiasts lacking around here. Take a look at HRWiki:Manual of Style and its accompanying talk page! —AbdiViklas 22:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Expanding your "Search & Destroy" list

I have yet to introduce myself, but I would like to go ahead and say "hi" to you at this point. Anyway, the point of my discussion here was to inquire whether it would be OK with you to add certain grammatical "issues" to your Search & Destroy list. Some examples of such "issues" would be a lot vs. *alot and whether (conjunction) vs. weather (noun). I have more but at this point I think it would be prudent to await a response before continuing further. Thanks! —THE PAPER PREEEOW 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new section on my user page for this, and I'll add your requests there. — Bill Martinson 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing.

Sweet grammar guide you got there! I was wondering... have you seen the movie Oscar with Silvester Stallone? :) --Stux 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't. Thanks for the compliment. Maybe someday the grammar guide can graduate into a sister page for the frequently misspelled words page. User:Bill Martinson/sig 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh! you should see it! It's a very funny movie! And your dangling modifiers reminded me of it, but I will say no more. Just rent it! ;) A grammar guide page! Sounds cool. --Stux 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome aboard!

...And, since this doesn't really connect with any of the above discussions, I'll start a new section. I just wanted to commend you for the tremendous number of really grade-A contributions you've made in the space of, what, 24 hours? It's always helpful to get someone who knows a misplaced modifier from a comma splice, and your zeal is matched by accuracy. Long may you edit! —AbdiViklas 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the kind words. In my experience, editors are usually considered a necessary evil at best, so it's nice to be appreciated and not just considered a Word Nazi. It's too bad there isn't some kind of regular-expression search function, to make it easier to find things like comma splices and other structural errors. (Being somewhat lazy, I wanted to start out with easy stuff I could just search for!) Oh well ... I guess I'll just have to read the whole darned wiki.  ;-) User:Bill Martinson/sig 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Red

Do we realy need the new templates you made? In my whole experience in this wiki, I can count the number of times I used red text on one finger (Yes, finger). Anyway, if this stays, you could make it on one template. You should also read Help:Template :) Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I've marked them for deletion, as they don't serve a purpose. — Lapper (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, initially I thought they were going to serve a purpose: I anticipated I might be using a lot of red and green as the Grammar Guide grew. But the templates didn't work the way I expected them to, and at the time I didn't realize templates could take parameters. All of which is moot, of course, in lieu of the more important server load issue (which I didn't even think about at the time). If it does turn out I start getting sick of writing span tags all the time for color, I may try again in the future using single (rather than paired) templates with parameters (and applying the subst: trick to save on server load). But by all means, let's delete the ones I created today, and I'm sorry for the trouble. User:Bill Martinson/sig 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it's no trouble. Experimentation is part of the fun. (It is a bummer when it doesn't work out like you'd hoped, though.) — It's dot com 19:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Not gonna rest till you like this word

Wow, someone on the wiki who's older than I am.

I am a copyeditor for a magazine. (Southwestern Musician. Our circulation is about 14,000, and the length varies, but it's about 72 pages each month.) Consequently, my two favorite resources are The Chicago Manual of Style and A Dictonary of Modern American Usage. I am a staunch supporter of the final serial comma in a list of three or more items. But I must take issue with your maligning the word till. It is a very good word. Here is the entry for till in the latter reference, in its entirety:

till; until. Till is, like until, a bona fide preposition and conjunction. Though less formal than until, till is neither colloquial nor substandard. It's especially common in BrE—e.g.:
  • "After the First World War, Hatay, named by Attaturk after the Hittites, fell into the hands of the French, who did not return it till 1939." Daniel Farson, "Rich Rewards in the Land of the Hittites," Independent, 1 Apr. 1995, at 37.
  • It was not till 1994 that the New Yorker unmasked Reage as journalist Dominique Aury—Paulhan's long-standing lover...." Jonathan Romney, "Story of O and S&M," Guardian, 21 Mar. 1997, at T9.
  • "He works from dawn till dusk, six days a week...." Adrian Brewer, "The House of God That Justo Built," Daily Telegraph, 31 Mar. 1997, at 17.

And it still occurs in AmE—e.g.: "In medium skillet, sauté the garlic till golden. Add onion, wait till brown." Jan Norris, "Latin, Asian Fests Add Spice to Weekend," Palm Beach Post, 23 Mar. 1995, at 1FN. But the myth of the word's low standing persists; some writers and editors mistakenly think that till deserves a bracketed sic. See, e.g., Alan Abrahamson, "'Out to Kill,' Says Eccentric S.D. Fugitive," L.A. Times, 30 July 1990, at B1 (adding a sic when quoting someone who used till).
    If a form deserves a sic, it's the incorrect 'til. Worse yet is 'till, which is abominable—e.g.: "A month or two remain 'till [read till] you grab your dancing shoes, plus a crew of pals or that special date." Francine Parnes, "Primping for the Prom," Denver Post, 21 Mar. 1997, at E1.

Additionally, the American Heritage Dictonary has this to say about the two words' usage: "Till is actually the older word, with until having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix un–, meaning 'up to'" ref.

Warmest regards,
It's dot com 20:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Wow. My gut response was to deploy the old "just because it's acceptable doesn't mean it's the best choice" argument, but I'm glad I didn't. I thought about what you were saying, did a little more research to confirm it, and found out that I have been flat wrong. Like, f'rever, man. Wow. It's pretty humbling (and embarrassing). But thank you for taking the time to make your point so clearly, saving me the further embarrassment of fighting a losing battle!
And the plot thickens. Not only did I learn that till is right and 'til is wrong, but I found a very interesting (if overly technical) paper asserting that till and until are not true synonyms, but rather have subtle differences. In a nutshell, one can assert that till tends to focus on the process (the waiting), whereas until tends to emphasize the result (that which ends the waiting). After going through the author's real-world examples, I am convinced. This is why we tend to say, "Peel those potatoes until you have a full bushel, Private!" (emphasis on the result), but "I'll have you peeling potatoes till Hell freezes over, Private!" (emphasis on the process). All of which provides even more evidence that one word is not a clipped form of the other.
Thanks for educating me! I will probably never again be able to type "until" without stopping to think whether I should instead use "till".
User:Bill Martinson/sig 21:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools