Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[Venusian Broon]

Also I suspect that even now in the UK most people have a better gut feel for what a thousand feet looks like than they do three hundred metres.

Actually, what unit of measurements do people use in their writing? Is Imperial your weapon of choice or are you S.I. when describing distances, mass, volume etc...? For example is said tower, 100 feet or approximately 30 metres high?

I'm resolutely S.I., as 1) that is what the Scottish Education system taught in the mid-1970s when I first went to school and 2) Physics in S.I. is so much easier! You would not believe some of the shenanigans you have to take into account to express some equations in non-SI units.

So Vertigo, I'm definitely a counter-example of a UK citizen who always has to convert pounds/inches/feet/miles etc... into Kg and metres before I get a sense of size or weight!

[The Judge]

Vertigo, I went and checked in my ODE which usually lists things of this kind but it was silent, so either it thinks the rules are obvious, or it hasn't come across the problem. My Oxford English says this:

There is some uncertainty about when to use the singular form, and when the plural, of nouns of measurement.
1. All nouns of measurement remain in the singular form when compounded with a numeral and used attributively before another noun: A six-foot wall; a three-mile walk; a five-pound note. This rule includes metric measurements.
2. Foot remains in the singular form in expressions such as: I am six foot; she is five foot two. But feet is used where an adjective, or the word inches follows, eg I am six feet tall; she is five feet three inches.

But no explanation or justification is given, so I've no idea why it's making that pronouncement. I know I've read somewhere that although this is what we say, it isn't strictly correct.

If this is narrative, then I'd suggest Ursa's paraphrase is better than a five-hundred-foot climb, anyway.

[Vertigo]

And I certainly expect such 'counter-examples' to increase over time.

I think it is a very difficult call in the UK. As more people grow up with SI units they will become more natural. I lived through the transition and even though I do everything (DIY, map reading, etc.) in SI I can still instantly visualise 2 inches much more quickly than 5cm. As someone who has spent his working life involved in engineering of some sort I find it very frustrating that I can't seem to switch the intuitive feel for Imperial units that I was originally brought up with. Also it is certainly not helped by the patchy way we seem to adopt some units in some contexts but not in others. A litre of petrol, a pint of beer etc. And we still doggedly cling to miles and yards on our roads.

Then as far as writing goes you have to consider whether you want the American market. I can promise you that the average American has very little feel for SI units.

Edit: TJ got in whilst I was typing: so isn't it frustrating that something I was sure was a simple question turns out so complicated! Argh!

[alchemist]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

Actually, what unit of measurements do people use in their writing? Is Imperial your weapon of choice or are you S.I. when describing distances, mass, volume etc...?

My very first post asked this question.

Imperial or metric?

The answers went on a bit longer than I expected.

[Vertigo]

Sorry for the rapid fire questions but I have just come across another one!

This is with regard to the use of the word 'that'. Now I'm sure this has been discussed before but I baulked at the idea of trying to search the Chrons for 'that'!

I came across this passage from a book on writing which seems inconsistent about its use of the word:

They [ears] detect an awkwardness in sentence structure or a jarring repetition the eyes pass over. Even if you're not exactly sure what's wrong, you hear that something is, and you can tinker...

Good advice I'm sure but it is the grammar I'm interested in here.

I think the first could have been written '...repetition that the eyes pass over...' and the second could have been written '...you hear something is,...'

Now it seems to me that (!!!) those two clauses are using or not using 'that' in exactly the same way. Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

[springs]

I wouldn't have either of the that's in it, but it's a personal thing. Certainly wouldn't have two.

[Vertigo]

So you're saying the use of 'that' in this (what a horrible word to talk about) context is essentially optional. I have often wondered should I put it in or am I being lazy by leaving it out.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Ursa I noticed that you added an extra hyphen in your example two-hundred-metre. Is that first hyphen correct? Is it maybe needed because of the hyphen before metre?

Probably. Possibly. (You don't really expect me to know the answer to that, do you? )



Actually, the reason I put the hyphen was the following. When I see

Ahead lay the final two hundred-metre climb to the summit

my brain starts expecting an s on the end of climb. Only for the briefest of moments, mind you, but enough to jar slightly. However, when I see

Ahead lay the final two-hundred-metre climb to the summit.

I know exactly what's happening. (True, I may start wondering about the hyphen, but as you may have noticed, I'm not averse to stringing quite a few words together with them; others may find this just as jarring as I find the other version.)

The answer may be to avoid needing any hyphens, as in my original suggestion, which permits the use of an "proper" adjective (in this case, hard), which must be omitted when all those long numbers of foots, feets, metres and metresses are plonked in front of the noun.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

As with all grammar I believe that that that makes us think must be good for us**.

I try to prune as many thats out of my dialogue as I can (except where the character is being playful), and try to keep the number of them in my narrative low. My use of them - my deliberate use of them post editing, not the stuff I first type - tends to increase where what's being described is complicated (and thus needs more precision to make sense).


The easiest way to see which ones work, and which ones don't, is to read the sentences under examination out loud. (So I think you're right about the rhythm.)


** - When we're writing. When we're reading, we don't necessarily want text that calls attention to itself unless, possibly, the writer wants us to see the text rather than (just) the story.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

I think the first could have been written '...repetition that the eyes pass over...'

Yes.

and the second could have been written '...you hear something is,...'

Yes, it could, but I wouldn't advise it. Read it out loud and you're searching for a word to come after the "is" to complete the sentence ie "you hear something is wrong". Using the "that" in that second sentence avoids the unfinished feel of it and allows the correct stress to be placed to make sense of the whole.

Now it seems to me that (!!!) those two clauses are using or not using 'that' in exactly the same way.

I don't think they are. I never learned all the technical stuff of relative pronouns and determiners and what-have-yous, but in the first sentence the "that" could be replaced with "which" eg "... repetition which the eyes pass over..." You can't do that in the second sentence -- "you hear which something is" doesn't make sense. And there's no reason to worry about "inconsistency" even if they were used in the same way -- sometimes you need to repeat the "that" and sometimes you don't -- you need to learn to feel the sentence.

Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

According to my ODE, where "that" is introducing a subordinate clause ie "She said [that] she was happy" it can be dropped, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes it's good to keep it for clarity and/or rhythm. In a sentence like "Any book that begins with a dream is binned" you can't omit it, but you can replace it with "which" if you don't like it.

[springs]

I've never really had the comma splice habit, until I read some feedback from an editor/agent which suggests where we have semi colons most could go and be replaced by commas/ full stops. Now, I know I do overuse semicolons and I am looking at them all critically, it's now turning into a comma splice habit instead. Which I used to use only for effect before. So, eg

They made their way through the quiet city to the barracks, the air tangy and stale; artificial.

Or should it be

to the barracks; the air tangy and stale, artificial.

Or, neither.

this one;


Lichio walked beside Kare. Despite their difference in ranks an easy friendship had developed

In this one I originally had Lichio walked beside Kare; despite.... , which I preferred, but I think was wrong and it should be a full stop.

Am I wrong? Are semi colons madly wrong here, I like their softness and sense of carrying a sentence along naturally and find comma splices too harsh.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by springs1971

They made their way through the quiet city to the barracks, the air tangy and stale; artificial.

I'd have said this semi-colon is wrong. Either a comma or a full stop if you want something heavier. (My initial preference was for the full stop, but this is one of those sentences I'd play around with for an hour or two before making a decision...)

to the barracks; the air tangy and stale, artificial.

I don't think I'd have picked this up as wrong in the middle of a paragraph, but I don't like it as much as the all-one sentence above.

this one;

Definitely wrong -- a colon needed.

Lichio walked beside Kare. Despite their difference in ranks an easy friendship had developed

I prefer this to your original semi-colon version. There are two complete and separate thoughts here, so to me they're best expressed as two sentences.

Comma splices are the work of the devil. Illiterate them quite from your vocabulary.**


** With apologies to Mrs Malaprop.

[Hex]

In my effort to illiterate the semi-colon and the colon I have been learning to love (*) 'and'.

(*) well, tolerate.

[Vertigo]

Thanks for your reponses. I guess I'm beginning to learn that grammar is sometimes a much looser beast than I had thought. I had always thought it was much more inflexible. Probably the fault of my earliest English Language teachers beating us about the head with huge books of rules.

See what I did there in those first two sentences If I take 'that' out of the first one it kind of stumbles for me but in the second leaving it out feels better.

[springs]

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Thanks for your reponses. I guess I'm beginning to learn that grammar is sometimes a much looser beast than I had thought. I had always thought it was much more inflexible. Probably the fault of my earliest English Language teachers beating us about the head with huge books of rules.

Well, concussion does inhibit the learning process.