Evil Genius

written grammar dictates that you use an in front of heretic, like with most h words, but i personally say a, in the dumb canadian accent way like eh.

So the use of a or an depends on the phonetic aspect of the word? Man, that means I have been doing it wrong this whole time.
I thought an was only used when the first letter of the following word was a vocal.
I guess you learn something new every day!




PD: Jolly Batman, this candy is super duper! And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their dumb dog! Soon I will be Invincible! (who said no one could learn a new language through mere imitation?)

Wow. Two consecutive grammar-related posts, both of which have spelling errors (I wouldn't bother pointing these out, but they're grammar-related posts, so it seems appropriate).

Rolos: I'm pretty sure you meant,

first letter of the following word was a vowal

Herald: I think you mean to say,

written grammar dictates that you use an

Just adding my two-cents worth.

towel

Istvan wrote:Wow. Two consecutive grammar-related posts, both of which have spelling errors (I wouldn't bother pointing these out, but they're grammar-related posts, so it seems appropriate).

Rolos: I'm pretty sure you meant,

first letter of the following word was a vowal

Herald: I think you mean to say,

written grammar dictates that you use an

Just adding my two-cents worth.

Thanks for the correction. In Spanish the word is "vocales", so I just assumed it would be something like that. My bad.




PD:

Towels?

Like I said, it was a minor thing (I actually thought you just made a typo), and normally I wouldn't have bothered to say anything, but since we were talking about proper grammar...

IIRC, "an" is only used preceding a word beginning with the letter "h" if the "h" is silent. For example, "AN herbalist," "A historian."

But I could be wrong. Or it could be one of those things that varies depending on whether one is speaking American or British or Australian or Canadian (etc. etc. etc.) English.

Speaking of grammar (or, more specifically, punctuation), Istvan, when using ellipses (...) you must follow them with a period when ending a sentence. So three dots when used within a sentence, four when used at the end:

"I like grammar... don't you?"

"Yeah, me too...."

Anybody else suddenly have that one MC Frontalot song, "Tongue-Cluckin' Grammarian," stuck in their head?

hbi2k wrote:Speaking of grammar (or, more specifically, punctuation), Istvan, when using ellipses (...) you must follow them with a period when ending a sentence. So three dots when used within a sentence, four when used at the end:

"I like grammar... don't you?"

"Yeah, me too...."

That's redundant considering the ellipsis already denotes the end of a sentence.

That's the thing, though, it doesn't. The ellipses denote a pause in the flow of the words. The period denotes the end of the sentence. Therefore, if you want to have a pause, then the end of the sentence, you need both.

One sentence:

I like grammar... don't you?

Two sentences:

I like grammar.... Don't you?

See the difference?

I'll be damned, you're right. In Spanish we only differentiate the end of a sentence when using ellipsis by capitalizing the first letter of the next word, so if if the letter is not capitalized, then it's still the same sentence, so no fourth period is ever needed.

Another small difference that doesn't sit well with me is the use of a period before closing a quotation, for example:

Roger said: "I left my jacket at home."

Instead of...

Roger said: "I left my jacket at home".

It just doesn't make any sense to put it there. We really need a regulating authority for the English language to at least bring some consistency.

Language consistency/rules makes stuff boring. That's why shakespeare's so fun to read.

Yeah, but there's a difference between adding new words and being inconsistent.

War Machine wrote:I'll be damned, you're right. In Spanish we only differentiate the end of a sentence when using ellipsis by capitalizing the first letter of the next word, so if if the letter is not capitalized, then it's still the same sentence, so no fourth period is ever needed.

Another small difference that doesn't sit well with me is the use of a period before closing a quotation, for example:

Roger said: "I left my jacket at home."

Instead of...

Roger said: "I left my jacket at home".

It just doesn't make any sense to put it there. We really need a regulating authority for the English language to at least bring some consistency.

This was one of the first rules I learned when I was beginning to write novel style stories when I was young, and it's a wierd one. To begin, you have two problems here in English. The first being that colons are only used when directly quoting someone, like in a first person narrative, and in a common third person narrative it would be: Roger said, "I left my jacket at home." The period always comes before the quotation if that is the end of the sentance. Now, if it isn't then that's okay, like this one: Roger said, "I left my jacket at home," and rubbed his arms. Then the comma is before the quotation. A time when the period is after a quotation at the end of the sentance is if one character is quoting another in a narrative: Steve said, "Roger said, 'I left my jacket at home'." This works because this sentance essentially belongs to Steve, so the period exists when his talking quote is done. This last bit can be argued, I've seen both in texts.

To Istvan, yes that was a dumb typo.
To hbi2k, I've seen both in published text, I go with the rule that H is a vowel and therefore has the word an, instead of a, but in speaking I tend to use a for h words.

It just doesn't make any sense to put it there. We really need a regulating authority for the English language to at least bring some consistency.

Nah. Languages by their very nature change, adapt and evolve. When the rules of a language become perfectly fixed, and everyone agrees on what the rules are, what is correct or incorect, it is a clear sign that said language is dead and no one really speaks it anymore.

Istvan wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to put it there. We really need a regulating authority for the English language to at least bring some consistency.

Nah. Languages by their very nature change, adapt and evolve. When the rules of a language become perfectly fixed, and everyone agrees on what the rules are, what is correct or incorect, it is a clear sign that said language is dead and no one really speaks it anymore.

By your definition Spanish should be about to die. Granted no language is perfect, but bringing a regulating authority can make new words have consistency and coherence. Even words borrowed from other languages can be subjected to some rules. For example, the word "Wachar", in Spanish, comes from the English "To Watch", same exact meaning. And this word is a relatively new word in the mexican Spanish vernacular (I can't speak for all Spanish speaking countries), but it is still subjected to the same rules of orthography: Verbs can only end in "ar", "er", "ir"; the emphasized syllable is the last one, so the tilde doesn't need to be written; and the "T" is dropped because the "T" sound in the middle would interrupt the spelling and it would not be close to how the original word sounds.

Having an authority dictating some rules does not mean those rules can't be changed or be expanded upon, it only means that the people have reached some consensus on the spelling and meaning of existing words and words to be added. You don't have a problem with dictionaries, do you?

Simply put, it would exist to prevent aberrations such as the words "knight", "night" and "nite" which sound the exact same way (not the best example of an "aberration", but you get the idea) Or at least prevent them from becoming too common so that people are not confused about the spelling of similar words.

War Machine wrote:

Istvan wrote:

It just doesn't make any sense to put it there. We really need a regulating authority for the English language to at least bring some consistency.

Nah. Languages by their very nature change, adapt and evolve. When the rules of a language become perfectly fixed, and everyone agrees on what the rules are, what is correct or incorect, it is a clear sign that said language is dead and no one really speaks it anymore.

By your definition Spanish should be about to die. Granted no language is perfect, but bringing a regulating authority can make new words have consistency and coherence. Even words borrowed from other languages can be subjected to some rules. For example, the word "Wachar", in Spanish, comes from the English "To Watch", same exact meaning. And this word is a relatively new word in the mexican Spanish vernacular (I can't speak for all Spanish speaking countries), but it is still subjected to the same rules of orthography: Verbs can only end in "ar", "er", "ir"; the emphazised syllable is the last one, so the tilde doesn't need to be written; and the "T" is dropped because the "T" sound in the middle would interrupt the spelling and it would not be close to how the original word sounds.

Having an authority dictating some rules does not mean those rules can't be changed or be expanded upon, it only means that the people have reached some concensus on the spelling and meaning of existing words and words to be added. You don't have a problem with dictionaries, do you?

Simply put, it would exist to prevent aberrations such as the words "knight", "night" and "nite" which sound the eact same way (not the best exmaple of an "aberration", but you get the idea) Or at least prevent them from becoming too common so that people are not confused about the spelling of similar words.

Yep, we all love the Spanish Royal Academy.


On an unrelated topic, since it seems we are going to have to wait a while before the next issue of berserk gets released ( I am seriously considering suicide. Someone else's "suicide".......), why don't we try to guess what real country berserk's countries are based on?
Here's an example:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... 69copy.jpg

Randel would be Holland, since it's a republic that has just achieved it's independence.
Balden would be Spain, since it's military is on par with Chudder's, but its engulfed in civil war and recently had lost sovereignty over Randel.
Chudder would be the holy Romano-Germanic Empire (or a continental-ized version of England), since its right next to France (Midland) and is constantly at war with it, but has succession problems.

What the hell? I'm away for a week because I spill coke on my keyboard and I have my own post? At least my computer can work with coke on it, but the keyboard is sticky.