Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52660
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Snarfyguy » 07 Dec 2017, 22:05

Do my job for me! :P

Somebody wrote:In short, what plaintiffs call the “totality of the circumstances” are is a series of kitchen-sink allegations with no bearing on consent. None changes change the dispositive fact that plaintiffs admitted that they were bound by [defendant]’s terms, and those terms disclose all of the conduct alleged in their complaint.


(my edits)

"Totality" is a collective, singular noun, right? So it takes "is," not "are." The thing that's a series is the totality, not the circumstances. (right?)

The next sentence is awkward, but my understanding of this kind of formulation is that "none" is simply short for "none of them," which to my ear is the third person plural: "none of them change the fact."

But is the word "none" really singular or plural? And why, since it's really neither?
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 39041
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Charlie O. » 07 Dec 2017, 22:08

Because it's a contraction of "not one"?

I agree with your edits.
Image

User avatar
The Beatles
hounds people off the board
Posts: 17387
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby The Beatles » 07 Dec 2017, 22:08

None = not one

which means it's singular

(but I see what you mean)
the Fred Dinenage of bees! wrote:BCB is boring bald men stroking each other's cocks while recommending Alan Parsons Project bootlegs

User avatar
The Beatles
hounds people off the board
Posts: 17387
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby The Beatles » 07 Dec 2017, 22:08

Well, there you go. If BCB's two brightest sparks agree....









;)
the Fred Dinenage of bees! wrote:BCB is boring bald men stroking each other's cocks while recommending Alan Parsons Project bootlegs

User avatar
Thang-y
Posts: 1034
Joined: 29 Apr 2016, 17:59

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Thang-y » 07 Dec 2017, 22:17

To make it smoother, I'd suggest

Somebody wrote:In short, what plaintiffs call the “totality of the circumstances” are is a series of kitchen-sink allegations with no bearing on consent. None changes, none of which change the dispositive fact that plaintiffs admitted that they were bound by [defendant]’s terms, and that those terms disclose all of the conduct alleged in their complaint.


Nor sure of the added "that", it depends on whether it was something to be admitted to.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 62491
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby sloopjohnc » 07 Dec 2017, 22:49

Charlie O. wrote:Because it's a contraction of "not one"?

I agree with your edits.


Ditto.
WG Kaspar wrote:I'm a happy bunny.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52660
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Snarfyguy » 07 Dec 2017, 22:52

Thang-y wrote:To make it smoother, I'd suggest

Somebody wrote:In short, what plaintiffs call the “totality of the circumstances” are is a series of kitchen-sink allegations with no bearing on consent. None changes, none of which change the dispositive fact that plaintiffs admitted that they were bound by [defendant]’s terms, and that those terms disclose all of the conduct alleged in their complaint.


Nor sure of the added "that", it depends on whether it was something to be admitted to.

I like that - thank you.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14968
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Jimbo » 08 Dec 2017, 00:41

In snort, what plaintuffs call the “totality of them circumstances” am is a series of kitchen-sink alligators with no bearings on congenital herpes. None, and by none I mean not one single solitary thing changes the dispositive fart that plaintiffs admitted that they were bound and gagged by the defendant’s goons, and those goons disclose all of the conduct allegedly alleged in their bitching and moaning.
Gadfly

User avatar
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42703
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby LeBaron » 08 Dec 2017, 00:49

Jimbo wrote:In snort, what plaintuffs call the “totality of them circumstances” am is a series of kitchen-sink alligators with no bearings on congenital herpes. None, and by none I mean not one single solitary thing changes the dispositive fart that plaintiffs admitted that they were bound and gagged by the defendant’s goons, and those goons disclose all of the conduct allegedly alleged in their bitching and moaning.


Fun fact for the cynical: when a court decides it is going to measure a certain issue by the “totality of the circumstances,” that means the court doesn’t want to be bound by any rule so it can pick its side in each case. See also, “balancing tests.”
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Quaco
F R double E
Posts: 46678
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 19:41

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Quaco » 08 Dec 2017, 01:12

None of which changes ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

User avatar
Thang-y
Posts: 1034
Joined: 29 Apr 2016, 17:59

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Thang-y » 08 Dec 2017, 01:50

Yes I meant to type 'changes' (honest gov) ...

take out the negative and it's: (not) one of them changes

Positive Passion
Posts: 610
Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Positive Passion » 08 Dec 2017, 06:34

None changes
The totality is

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 846
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Robert » 08 Dec 2017, 08:05

The Unfragrant Ox wrote:None = not one

which means it's singular

(but I see what you mean)


I tend to get lost in these sort of things. Not one in this case means not one but also not more than one, actually it means nothing.
But you wouldn't say 'nothing change' .

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 34447
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: bama via new orleans

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby kath » 08 Dec 2017, 19:05

there *used* to be a rule that none can be either singular or plural. don't know if it's still in use.

it depends on what it's referring to and if it's a countable thing or not.

none of this series makes sense.
none of these jerkwads drink.
none of the air is breathable. (singular for the not countable)

edit: found a source for the rule as i remembered it, anyway.

None can take either a singular or plural verb. A common misconception is that none is always singular because it is short for no one. However, it is just as likely to mean not any, implying a plural. When none is followed by a mass noun (a noun that cannot be counted or made plural) it takes a singular verb.

http://www.onlinegrammar.com.au/top-10-grammar-myths-none-always-takes-a-singular-verb/

User avatar
Darkness_Fish
Posts: 5306
Joined: 27 Jul 2015, 09:58

Re: Calling Grammar/Usage Nerds!

Postby Darkness_Fish » 08 Dec 2017, 21:02

I'd stick with change, not changes. The first sentence tells you what the "totality of circumstances" is (a series of kitchen-sink allegations). The second sentence is saying that none of these allegations change the fact.
Like fast-moving clouds casting shadows against a hillside, the melody-loop shuddered with a sense of the sublime, the awful unknowable majesty of the world.