New column-type thingy

[Jonathon]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Jonathon]

Hanged and Hung

[rivka]

It's interesting that everyone I know who remembers being taught this uses the same exact example for hung: people are hanged, pictures are hung.

(Also, your last parenthetical has no close.)

[Jonathon]

It's interesting that everyone I know who remembers being taught this uses the same exact example for hung: people are hanged, pictures are hung.

Probably because it makes a good mnemonic—it's memorable and easy to grasp.

(Also, your last parenthetical has no close.)

Thanks for catching that.

[rivka]

Probably because it makes a good mnemonic—it's memorable and easy to grasp.

Probably. Nonetheless, it's interesting there are (as far as I am aware) no alternative mnemonics used.

[Tante Shvester]

One of my high school English teachers did note that men can be hung, but only in the colloquial sense.  She was a hot riot.

[Porter]

It's interesting that everyone I know who remembers being taught this uses the same exact example for hung: people are hanged, pictures are hung.

Probably because it makes a good mnemonic—it's memorable and easy to grasp.

I don't get how it is memorable.  I mean, I remember the mnemonic, but it's always as "People are [either hanged or hung], pictures are [the other one].  The mnemonic doesn't help me remember which word is used in which situation.

[Jonathon]

I guess you have to have some inkling of which is which first. Then it just serves as a reminder.

[Porter]

Oh well.  I never remember which is which for lay/lie either.

[Jonathon]

Completion Successful

[Farmgirl]

Completion Successful

Huh.  I had never thought of it in that way.  But now I always will.  And since I work at a bank, I'm probably going to share this particular column...

[Jonathon]

Success!

[Jonathon]

Relative Pronoun Redux

[rivka]

Is there really meant to be a that that in one of your examples? (If so, it lost me completely, and now I'm trying not to recall the entire that that quote from the Thursday Next books. And failing . . .)

The that/which thing has never bothered me. Which probably just means I never had a teacher who corrected me on it.

[Jonathon]

It is intentional. I'm showing that that doesn't work in some situations. Hence the asterisk.

Lucky you for never having it inflicted on you. I picked it up when I started copy editing and defended it valiantly for several years before being disabused of it by Language Log.

[rivka]

I'm showing that that doesn't work in some situations.

That much I followed.

[Jonathon]

Um . . . so what didn't you follow?

[rivka]

Double thats usually fry my brain. This is no exception.

[Jonathon]

Ah. Normally the second that would be which. Or you could replace them both with what.

[rivka]

Normally the second that would be which.

And with that substitution, I can decode.

Or you could replace them both with what.

But not with that one. *headasplode*

[Jonathon]

Why not with that one? "They want what they can't have."

[rivka]

Oh! I misunderstood what you meant by "both" (as distinct from "each").

[Jonathon]

 

I would take "you can replace them each with what" to mean that the end result would be "they want what what they can't have". I can see how "both" can yield the same reading, but I don't see how "each" would mean what I wanted to mean.

At any rate, I edited the original passage in question to make it a little clearer.

[rivka]

The error was mine, not yours.

[Jonathon]

Well, whoever's error it was, glad we got it all cleared up.