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.

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.

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".

"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. )

arnie, could you possibly be referring to Gypsy Rose Lee?

(I think we got him, Kalleh!)

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?

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."

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...

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:


Like you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me

---

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.

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!

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:


Like you, signs of the sort you mention trigger a streak of evil humor in me

---

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

http://www.robertjhale.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

---

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.

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.

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!!

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???)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
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???)

---

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.

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!

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!

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
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!

---

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.

quote:

---

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, 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!

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.]

No, Tinman, you had it right the first time. Shufitz admitted to being domesticated by his wife so my response was that I (NOT my humor) was undomesticated owing, at least in part, to the recent inability of any sweet young thing (of any age; I'm not an age-ist) to tolerate my live-in company on a regular basis.

"Mice, like elephants, are four-legged animals" would be how I would cast that sentence. To be perfectly frank, the only way I would alter my original statement would be to change the "Like you" to a clearer "As is the case with you" or something like that. Had I known that this relatively minute error (and I'm not even positively convinced it's all that egregious a flaw!) was going to create such a bruhaha, I would have written with more care.

On the FOTA board a few months ago I managed to piss off everyone within a half light year radius by making a distinction between "chat" and "conversation," the first being a more casual sub-category of the second. Please believe that I mean absolutely no offense when I say that postings of this sort are more chat to me than actual serious writing. I tap out my thoughts, read them once, make needed corrections, and that's pretty much it. One reason I enjoy this board is that I don't think I've ever seen anyone pounce on another's writing to point out insignificant errors, typos, and the like. B.H. using "CJs" when he obviously meant "CJ's" in his last post above (and he [gasp!] a FOTArian!) could have prompted me to proudly point out that a "CJ" is rather a singular being and not likely pluralized but, like I say, this isn't that type of board.

Morgan, I've ridden a motorcycle twice in my entire life. The first instance ended in a major accident and the second ended in a near-major accident (at ease, guys; I specifically chose that phrasing over "nearly ended in a major accident" for the sake of symmetry) so motorcycles and I mutually long ago decided to leave each other alone. Like the saying goes:

"East is east and west is west and, like parallel lines, never the twain shall meet."

Don't worry CJ. I didn't mean to pounce on your minor error. I originally intended my response to be just a tiny slightly humorous aside.
It's only reached the stage it has because I really enjoy discussing this kind of stuff ! The more you respond the more I'll keep on.

If you want to dangle your participles you just go right ahead and do it. I'm a broad minded kind of chap.

Do you want to go into the difference between axioms and definitions now ? (Just kidding !)

Incidentally where does the "I give in" meaning for the word "Uncle" come from ?

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Oy, Vey! I just got a manuscript back from my editor & the reviewers. Do need the likes of all of you to help me! There are so many red marks that I wish I were color-blind! Further, if I could only get "that" and "which" straight!

Oh, Bob, but didn't we agree that there was no participle to dangle?

And, CJ--I would vehemently disagree that all of this has been chat! This has been an intellectual discussion, IMHO.

Lastly, Morgan: Once, in my early 20s, I went to Nassau. In order to see the countryside, we rented motorcycles. Oh, my God, was I scared! I had no instructions--he just handed it over. However, we were able to see the entire island, while the wimps sat at home!

I have ridden motorcycles ever since I was old enough so to do. When I went to Martha's Vineyard a few years ago I decided to rent a dual-seat moped to see the place. My experience was quite different from Kalleh's.

Presumably because of the litigious nature of the Americans, the instructor spent some time explaining how the machine worked (even though I assured him I knew). Then he asked me to ride round the block to familiarise myself with it.

So I jumped on, twisted the grip and roared off with the full and throbbing power that only a 50cc moped can supply. When I slowed for the major road I became aware of a distant padding sound and a hoarse cry. I stopped and looked round and there was the merchant, running behind me desparately trying to keep up with my 25 mph top speed in case I fell off!

This was, apparently, his standard practice and explained in unmistakable visual manner the reason for his slim and althletic build!

And, no. We didn't fall off, drop the machine or have any other adverse experience - except for one near miss.

There is a small band of Martha's Vineyard residents who oppose the daily influx of visitors and their buzzing around the town on rented mopeds and are trying to get the hire of the machines stopped. (There is are banners proclaiming that wish on some of the cars).

A car, obviously driven by one such individual passed us as we approached an intersection and braked hard once he had done so, obviously hoping that we would run into him. Fortunately, many years of riding have honed my traffic reflexes to a fine standard and I was able to stop. It was, though, a near thing and a sad relection on the mean-minded attitude of a minority.

Richard English

To Kalleh (& everyone else):

I didn't mean to imply that there was anything wrong with chat. My point was that if I had been writing that original post for publication or as part of a school assignment or the like, I would have taken more time and effort to polish the syntax.

(Sidenote: Does "polish the syntax" sound like a slang term for a solitary sexual encounter to anyone else besides me?)

I very much enjoy chatting on this board, far more so than on others. The level of intellectualism is comfortably high, yet not too high (not usually, anyway), and the friendships I feel I've formed here would not have been possible had we been "writing" all this time instead of "chatting."

(Awwww... Group hug, everybody!)

Agreed on the "chat vs. intellectual" point. There'd be no point special point to the board if it didn't have content, but no point at all if it weren't fun.

Also agreed with your reflections on "syntax".

Since I am female, I won't touch "polish the syntax" with a 10-foot pole!

One of the things that has been missing, IMHO, from this board has been more give and take with posters. Therefore, I very much welcome the chat, as long as the board stays focused on words, phrases, or the like. We have had too many of what I term "isolated posts" where somebody says something, somebody says something else, and there's no give & take.

Richard, I have biked completely around Martha's Vineyard. In retrospect, a motorcycle would have been wonderful. As far as my Nassau experience, it wasn't exactly rented at a sophisticated place as they used an old rag for the gas cap. I know, not exactly safe. Beggars can't be choosers!

On our way to a wedding yesterday, we passed a sign that said "The Dog Bar ~~ Casual fine dining". My guest said that it sounded like a contradition in terms...casual and fine. What I didn't tell him, is this place is about as casual as they get. The "no shirt, no shoes, no service" idea doesn't even apply there!

Kalleh, I'm with you on the "polish the syntax" thought!

I am very happy this place has a feel of "chattiness" and friendship. It would be a very cold place otherwise.

Going back to the "chat" point.

To me, the most stimulating parts of this board are those that grow out of our "give and take". The "Phantasmagoria" thread was one of my favorites because it even went beyond sharing: the thoughts that Allan's original post prompted led us to find information that none of use had known before.

Thank you, Allan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
On the FOTA board a few months ago I managed to piss off everyone within a half light year radius by making a distinction between "chat" and "conversation," the first being a more casual sub-category of the second.

---

I remember that "discussion". I stayed out of it, but I pretty much agreed with you. You didn't piss me off, but maybe I'm more than a half light-year from you. Around here, a word (or two) for "chat" would be "small talk". I assumed "small talk" was a universal term, but, unlike you, I am occasionally (ok, frequently) wrong. I just discovered another word for "chat": "persiflage" (http://www.word-detective.com/back-k2.html#persiflage (second entry from the bottom)).

Tinman

"Proper dress required"

Hmmmmmmm...My husband and I dined at a restaurant last night. Let me tell you about the waitresses. The waitress we had, appeared in a pair of beige hip-hugger pants, and a skimpy blouse. Every time she came to our table, she pulled the blouse down to cover her naval. One of the other waitresses was in high heals, skin tight black pants, and a tight leopard print blouse. Yet another looked like a frumpy housewife on cleaning day in a sweatshirt! I couldn’t tell you what the other two were wearing. And believe me, that is probably best.

This was an expensive restaurant and we dressed properly for the experience. Don't you think this is a bit ridiculous for waitresses?

I agree. And as customers you have the perfect right to take your custom elsewhere - and I hope you will!

Richard English

Richard, is that usage of "custom" common in the UK? It's one I know of but can't recall ever hearing in everyday speech.

Sorry to be interrupting the train of thought here, but I just saw Tinman's post about "persiflage". Loved it, Tinman, and as usual Word Detective is great! From now on, for me, it's "persiflage" and not "chat"!

Not only common but also 100% accurate.

Why otherwise "customers"?

Richard English

I have never heard this ussage of "custom" either!

Oscar Wilde said, "...We have everything in common with the Americans - except language, of course..."

According to the OED:

esp. Brit. business patronage; regular dealings or customers.

So this would explain why you've not hear of it, common though it is over here.

Can I suggest its adoption as a useful and appropriate word?

Richard English

Regarding "custom," I wouldn't expect it to catch on here in the states since "I'll take my business elsewhere" is so ingrained.

Also "custom" brings to mind the habits or lifestyle of a different culture. The average American hearing the sentence "I'll take my custom to another restaurant" could very easily conjure up an image of the speaker entering the facility wearing leiderhosen or something along those lines.