Do The Decemberists have people fooled?

moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Convenient, but incorrect. You can't modify a singular noun with a plural pronoun. Until gender neutral pronouns become accepted, the best pronoun in this case you be his/her. And you can't blame the original speaker. Walter being illogical, now that's a shock. But he's still grammatically correct.

Check out American Usage and Style - the Consensus by Roy Copperud. He agrees with me both in the acceptability of such modification and in the clumsiness of his/her. If you're unwilling to accept 'their', you can always revert to the simple 'his' - although I tend to avoid it.

So Walter may be gramatically correct, but he has no style


Edited by Visitor13 - June 15 2009 at 16:03

Fly, you fools!

hahhahah....


that sucked Beavis... made A Perfect Crime sound like Close to the Edge

Negoba wrote: 12 Bar Blues Progression - Check Casio Keyboard sounds - Check Out of Sync Harmonies - Check Almost in time drums - Check Mixing LSD and Paint Thinner - Check   What could have gone wrong?

Some logical queries for dear Walter:

1 - What is the cutoff for music? Is it just 1990 + in general? Or did something magically vile and sinister occur December 31st at 11:59-January 1st 12:00?

Why is all music made post 89 worse than all music made prior? Are you seriously saying that Bands like
Foreigner, Motley Crue, and Quiet Riot are more original than any and all bands made past 1989? What is the actual scientific assessment of it? All bands have influences. I don't see you damning Alan Parsons for his influences, which are much more defining than any influences I've found in maudlin of the Well.

Would you go step by step with me? Is it some maniacal brain wave corruption? Can you define exact and precise proponents to your theory with proven scientific tests and backing? What of birth before or after 1989?

What determines the quality? What if a band recorded a lot of songs in 1987, but only released them in 1991? Does that make the music bad? How would you scientifically determine this?

Is it whent he music is recorded, or when it is released? Did all songs unreleased prior to 1989 magically lose their quality when the year passed?

I would love a thorough and pragmatic response.

Keppa4v wrote: ^I learned today that to be accepted as music the band in question must have debuted before 1989. 2009 albums by any old enough farts are worth some clappies.

Alitare wrote: I would love a thorough and pragmatic response.

Don't hold your breath, my friend.

Visitor13 wrote: ~Rael~ wrote: Visitor13 wrote: moreitsythanyou wrote: Visitor13 wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: his/her their Actually Walter is right (something I thought I'd never say). He used artist as a singular so the pronoun should be singular as well. 'His/her' or 'his or her' are very clumsy ways of circumventing problems with gender in pronouns though. Enter the plural form, convenient and accepted as an alternative, despite its conflict with the singular form of 'artist'. And it's logical, too. Walter really means the totality of pre-'89 artists here, not just a single one. Actually, it is not acceptable to match a singular pronoun with a plural counterpart, or vice versa. The best alternative would have been to write "you're neglecting a pre-1989 artist and that artist's masterpieces." Less clunky than "his or her" or "his/her." And I do not think Walter meant the totality of pre-'89 artists, because all of Walter's grammar seems competent, so his use of  "his/her" was obviously intentional. Plus, "his/her" or "his or her" is perfectly accpetable. And grammatical correctness always supersedes style.  Using "they" after a singular pronoun is starting to become okay in writing, but it still has a couple decades to integrate itself fully into the English language and become truly acceptable. And even then, it won't be correct to everyone. And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary agrees with me too - though it does admit that the use of 'they/their/etc." after a singular noun or pronoun is considered erroneous by some. Isn't language fun?

It is fun, that's why I'm such a grammar nazi. But a plural pronoun taking the place of a singular noun is just plain wrong no matter how many people mess it up.

watching a good hijack is almost as fun as doing it yourself

Alitare wrote: Some logical queries for dear Walter: 1 - What is the cutoff for music? Is it just 1990 + in general? Or did something magically vile and sinister occur December 31st at 11:59-January 1st 12:00? Keith Emerson woke up with a female expert in sexual physical services by his side and he decided that his b*****d child "prog rock" didn't have a right to live, therefore he announced his plans to go to wichita kansas.... Why is all music made post 89 worse than all music made prior? Because great people was born in 1988, therefore, nothing good could happen after such a religious event... Are you seriously saying that Bands like Foreigner, Motley Crue, and Quiet Riot are more original than any and all bands made past 1989?  Well, yes... Mucho better then Hottie and The Blowfish and Candlebox... But also much better than Sigur Ros... although he was born in 1999.... And it's still whining.... What is the actual scientific assessment of it? Pure biology you fools!! All bands have influences. I don't see you damning Alan Parsons for his influences, which are much more defining than any influences I've found in maudlin of the Well. Because Alan Parsons was actually awake and sober when he recorded... Would you go step by step with me? That's New kids on the Block... Is it some maniacal brain wave corruption? Good title for a post-1989 album... Can you define exact and precise proponents to your theory with proven scientific tests and backing?Try "The Dawn of the era of Anti-music and the death of thye arts" by Thomas Henry Guayasamin, Edit Anata, 1999, p. 234  What of birth before or after 1989? What determines the quality? WalterlikestunesWhat if a band recorded a lot of songs in 1987, but only released them in 1991? Then Walterdoesn'tdigtunes Does that make the music bad? Walterfeelsmusicsucks How would you scientifically determine this?Walterconfused Is it whent he music is recorded, or when it is released? Teoalsoconfusedbutdigstunes Did all songs unreleased prior to 1989 magically lose their quality when the year passed?Yes.... there was a cosmic event which all of you fools happen to ignore which caused this.... You should read your gazettes more you people of low information... I would love a thorough and pragmatic response. Walterrunsaway