Wordcraft Home Page Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Questions & Answers about Words "Proper Attire Required..."
Wordcraft Community Home Page Forums Questions & Answers about Words "Proper Attire Required..."|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
The sign in the pub said, "Proper Attire Required After 4:30."
And I, being a wise-acre, promptly said, "Is improper attire allowed before 4:30?" (Though my wife has domesticated me sufficiently that I said that only to myself, not aloud.) But how could the publican have phrased the sign more "properly"? Frankly, I'm at a loss for any better phasing. |
||
|
Member |
How about "No casual attire permitted after 4:30"?
I would suppose that the definitions of "casual," "formal," "semi-formal" and the like are flexible enough to provide enough leeway to the management to keep their standards up without losing too much business. Like you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me that, unlike you, is proudly undomesticated. The fact that I am twice divorced is not totally unrelated. As a 200+ pound 50-year-old male, I would be sorely tempted to show up at said restaurant at 4:29 dressed as Little Bo Peep and then defy them to refuse me service. The one lamb I would bring would be introduced as my "seeing-eye sheep" so they couldn't kick me out in that regard. |
|||
|
Member |
All the pictures I can recall seeing of Little Bo Peep showed her attired very properly indeed, with a long skirt, bonnet and full sleeves. I think CJ should show up at the pub dressed as Gipsy Rose Lee halfway through her act. That might properly be described as "improper attire".
 |
|||
|
|
Member |
"How about 'No casual attire permitted after 4:30'?"
The difficulty with that is that dress in a pub, even after the 4:30 hour, is most definitely casual, not formal. I suppose one could itemize the "extreme casual" which prohibited after that hour: tee-shirts (spelling?), cut-offs, etc. But as to the much more important subject of arnie's excellent suggestion: CJ, exactly where in Illinois are you. The pub is in Evanston ... and I'll be there ... (Photographs will be made available to other board members, for a small fee. ) |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
Member |
Oh my God! I think you are right, Shufitz! How I wish I had been the one!
This discussion reminds me of a recent business trip to DC. The concierge had a list of restaurants, with the following descriptions of dress: "casual, business casual, smart casual, and business". I wanted to go to one of the smart casual restaurants so I told the concierge that I was from the midwest and had no idea what smart casual was. Being a politically correct concierge, he said that I looked fine. However, I still really don't know what that means. Anyone else? |
|||
|
|
Member |
You are right, of course. She spelled her name "Gypsy".
I particularly like one of her quotes: "I have everything I had twenty years ago--except now it's all lower." |
|||
|
|
Member |
Shufitz, I could hardly be farther away from you and still be in the state of Illinois. While I was born and raised in a suburb of New York City, I presently find myself living (if that's the word) in Belleville, IL which is just across the Mississippi from St Louis, MO.
Belleville's claims to fame (again, if those are the words) are: 1. a fountain in the middle of town that the locals drag visitors out to gawk at, God knows why, and 2. the fact that a few years back we were the subject of a "60 Minutes" segment which investigated our racist police force and city government. If you're ever in the neighborhood (B.Y.O.L.B.P.C.*, we'll party!) just mention that you remember seeing that particular episode and you will be immediately surrounded by "helpful" Bellevillians eager to set you straight. Had I known this was such a racist little cowtown I never would have settled here. Long story... *B.Y.O.L.B.P.C. = Bring Your Own Little Bo Peep Costume. The locals will absolutely freak and the hardware stores would experience a sudden run on tar and feathers... |
|||
|
|
Member |
A sidenote:
I like the concept of "smart casual" which, smart-ass that I tend to be, would equate to showing up in my pajamas lugging a full set of encyclopedias in a dolly. |
|||
|
Member |
quote: C.J., why does shufitz trigger a streak of evil humour in you ? Just asking. My failing memory is temporarilly unable to give me the proper name for this erronious grammatical construction. Can anyone help me out ? Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
There is a restaurant about 10 miles from my home on a twisty back country road. My husband and I frequently pass it on motorcycle, and I am always taken aback by the sign on the building that says "No Motorcycles Permitted in the Parking Lot". I want to park across the street some time and walk in with my leathers, helmet and boots on and ask why not!
|
|||
|
|
Member |
My failing memory is temporarilly unable to give me the proper name for this erronious grammatical construction. Can anyone help me out ?
Boy, Bob, I'm not sure.  I remember diagraming sentences in English:of the sort would modify signs; (that would be understood); you mention would modify of the sort--but where would like you, go? I haven't done that in a long time! Arnie, you were most gracious with your rather tiny error, which Shufitz, not I (darn!), caught. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: I've been thinking and I've a feeling that it's a form of misplaced or unattached participle (though the sharper eyes will notice that the construction doesn't actually contain a particple so I could be wrong.) As the "you" in the sentence attaches itself to the verb "trigger" though, it does look to be very similar in form to the example given in Partridge which is "Being stolen, the bank refused to honour the note." and which gives the distinct impression that someone has stolen the bank. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
To Morgan:
Rather than parking your motorcycle across the street, you should ride it right into the restaurant and then compliment the owners on their concern that their diners' bikes not be left unprotected in the parking lot. Try this with a half dozen or so of your likewise leathered friends and I bet they let you stay! To B.H.: As you can see, Kalleh is not the only person I find inspirational in this way. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Oh, and one more thing...
In the phrasing, "Like you, signs of the sort you mention..." the first two words are used as an idiom roughly equal to something along the lines of "In agreement with what you said,..." As such, it wouldn't be grammatically incorrect, would it? This isn't an argument (not a strong one, anyway) since I'm neither 100% sure of my stand nor much more than 15% inclined to argue it. Now, the subject of parallel lines, on the other hand! That's another matter entirely!! |
|||
|
|
Member |
CJ, that argument makes sense to me. I don't think it is a misplaced participle ("a word having the characteristics of both verb and adjective"), though Lord knows I've been wrong here multiple times (right, Arnie???)
 |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: I'm not sure exactly what it is except that I'm sure it's wrong. I don't dispute for a minute that it's common - I even use the same construction myself in speech - but that doesn't make it right. Let's compare examples. Like chocolate, biscuits are something I love. Like houses, apartments are places to live. Like elephants, mice are four legged animals. Like you, I am a member of the wordcraft board. Like you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me. Spot the similarity? I still don't know what it's called though. (I agree it probably isn't an unattached participle as there isn't a participle involved.) Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Back to the original post here, I found the following in an advertisement for a restaurant: "Proper dress required (Denim pants not permitted)". Wonder what they would think of my leathers?
And, CJ? Do you ride? You could join me! |
|||
|
|
Member |
But, Bob, do you see what CJ was saying? In his phrase the like you was an idiom for In agreement with what you said--doesn't that make sense? I would love the help of an English teacher here!
|
|||
|
Member |
Two things.
The best English pubs have two or more bars the names of which vary but "public" and "saloon" are commonly used. In the public bar almost any dress is permitted and the idea is that the working man, dressed in his overalls or builder's clothes, could pop in after work and have a pint. The other bar is where people are more smartly dressed and the bar itself would usually be better furnished. The price of the beer would usually be a few pence higher in the saloon. Some pubs would have an even larger number of bars with each serving a different kind of member of the drinking community. Sadly, the pressures of labour costs and spurious egalitarianism have largely done away with this excellent tradition and most pubs now have but one bar - usually of "saloon bar" standards, hence the "no motorcyclists or other ruffians" notices. Secondly there is, even in England, a degree of prejudice against motorcyclists although, heaven knows, trouble is far more likely to be started by the more extreme supporters of football (soccer) than it is ever likely to be started by motorcyclists. I have great pleasure in parking my 1930 Rudge Ulster outside an "non-motorcyclist" pub and to walk in displaying my grey beard and other tokens of my harmless and advanced years! I have never yet been asked to leave. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: I do see what he was saying, definitely! I even say things like it myself. In speech I even use real misplaced particples such as the one I originally quoted."Being stolen, the bank refused to accept the note." I defy anyone to truthfully claim that if they heard this they would take it to mean "Because the bank had been stolen it refused to accept the note." rather than "Because the note had been stolen, the bank refused to accept it." When we listen, or for that matter when we read, two things go on in our brains. The first is simply a decoding of the sounds or symbols to match them to our internal set of "meanings" so that we understand the elements of the sentence and the second and subtler process is the cognitive one whereby we can override what the sentence actually said and determine what it meant. This isn't purely a linguistic process. It depends on all kinds of things. The most importance is obviously the context, the environment if you prefer, but there are others; our relationship to the speaker, our knowledge of their opinions, the tone of voice used in spoken English, what kind of mood we are in. A hundred different things are taken instantly into consideration. Yes, I was being tongue in cheek when I interpretted CJs sentence as meaning that shufitz triggers a streak of evil humour in him. Tongue in cheek it may have been but from a strictly grammatical point of view that is exactly what the sentence says. Consider this pair of examples. Being stolen, the bank refused to accept the note. Being tired, John put the children to bed. If we accept the first as OK then I'd have to ask who, in the second, was tired - John or the Children? Incidentally, if you count EFL, then I am an English teacher. Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Read all about my travels around the world here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote:Richard, I knew I liked you! I guess what I don't understand about this particular situation is that this is a road that beckons motorcycles and sports cars. It's twisty turny and in the back country. We either pass there on our motorcycles, or when we run through the hills in my husbands 66 Corvette. They do not say "motorcyclists not allowed in here" or "proper dress required". The sign clearly states that I can't park my motorcycle in their parking lot. I wonder! |
|||
|
|
Member |
C J said
“Like you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me that, unlike you, is proudly undomesticated.” I wasn’t going to say anything about this sentence, but… I thought at first this was a “misplaced phrase” error (http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/msplmod.html). But I now think it’s a matter of leaving out some words. The “you” after “like” is equated with “signs of the sort you mention”. That’s why Bob jumped on it. But what you meant was, “Like in you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me …” I think “As they do in you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me …” might have been better. The last part of the sentence, “...unlike you, is proudly undomesticated”, seems awkward, too. At first glance it seems that you are saying that you are “proudly undomesticated”, while Shufitz is domesticated. A second glance revealed that your humor was “proudly undomesticated”, while Shufitz’s humor was domesticated. Perhaps changing “unlike you” to “unlike yours” would improve the sentence. I might recast the sentence to something like this: “As they do in you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me which, unlike yours, is proudly undomesticated.” Don’t ask me why I chose “which” over “that”. It just sounds better to me. Here are a couple of links that explain the difference between “which” and “that”, but I really can’t understand it very well. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/which.html http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html#that Bob said he often uses similar constructions: Like chocolate, biscuits are something I love. Like houses, apartments are places to live. Like elephants, mice are four legged animals. Like you, I am a member of the wordcraft board. Bob’s examples do resemble your sentence, but are different in that the word following “like” is correctly equated to the following word. Eliminating the “like” and replacing the comma with “and” (and a few other minor changes) would retain the meaning of the sentence. Bob’s sentences could be rewritten thusly: Chocolate and biscuits are things I love. Houses and apartments are places to live. (I would probably write, “are places to live in” or “in which to live”) Elephants and mice are four-legged animals. You and I are members of the wordcraft board. But a similar change in your sentence would result in, “You and signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me…” I don’t think that’s what you meant. While I was searching for references on "like" I found the EVASION-ENGLISH DICTIONARY (http://www.cafemo.com/eedict/like.html) The last sentence is the funniest. Tinman [This message was edited by tinman on Thu Nov 7th, 2002 at 4:59.] |
|||
|
|
Member |
|