Author Topic: Dear Expert (Read 151715 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #775 on:** February 12, 2014, 11:25:03 AM »

Talking about general cases or unknown or unspecified entities is certainly common. But in that case her is not referring to Sue, but to the indefinite a plumber. It can't be both a general case and Sue.

rivka · « **Reply #776 on:** February 12, 2014, 02:07:36 PM »

So you agree with the person I semi-quoted?

Nuts.

Jonathon · « **Reply #777 on:** February 12, 2014, 02:43:30 PM »

I think I semi-agree. There is no absolute requirement to use a gender-neutral pronoun; generic he has been used for years, and some people now use generic she to mix things up or push back against stereotypes. But it can't be generic pronoun referring to an indefinite noun and refer to a specific gendered individual.

dkw · « **Reply #778 on:** February 19, 2014, 12:48:24 PM »

Chicago Manual of Style question: When you have citations from more than one chapter of a book that's an edited collection of chapters by different authors should there be an entry in the bibliography for each chapter used, or just one for the whole book?

Jonathon · « **Reply #779 on:** February 19, 2014, 01:14:38 PM »

You should cite each chapter, but you can do it a couple different ways. If you're citing only a few contributions from an edited volume, you may want to cite each one in full, like so:

Smith, John. Date. "Title." In Book Title, edited by Jane Doe, pages. Place: Publisher.

But if you have several, you can cross-reference.

Smith, John. Date. "Title." In Doe, pages.
Jones, Sue. Date. "Title." In Doe, pages.
Doe, Jane. Date. Book Title. Place: Publisher.

Does that make sense?

dkw · « **Reply #780 on:** February 19, 2014, 03:04:29 PM »

So, the same in the bibliography as in the footnotes. Thanks.

Jonathon · « **Reply #781 on:** February 19, 2014, 03:54:18 PM »

Yup. You're welcome.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #782 on:** March 05, 2014, 04:28:42 PM »

With all the mention of The Ukraine in the news, I wonder what happened to the "The" in "The Ukraine". Apparently, now it's just "Ukraine". When did they drop the "The"?

The United Stated of America may be the last nation to hold onto their "The". I don't know, maybe The Democratic Republic of Congo still uses it.

rivka · « **Reply #783 on:** March 05, 2014, 04:52:05 PM »

There's still The Hague and The Bronx. (Not technically nations, although the latter could be so argued.

)

Jonathon · « **Reply #784 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:08:10 AM »

The Netherlands and the Philippines (not to mention the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, and on and on). Apparently Ukraine officially dropped the article when they declared independence back in 1991, but not everyone got the memo. And I've seen some arguments that "the" is only used for regions and not countries (which is not true) and that the Russians referred to it as the Ukraine during the Soviet era, but that doesn't make sense to me—Russia doesn't have articles.

Edit: Here's a more thorough explanation.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #785 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:26:18 AM »

Quote

There are many other country names that are habitually referred to with "the", such as Congo, Gambia, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Netherlands, Philippines and Bahamas.

I never hear people saying "The Gambia", "The Yemen", "The Lebanon", or "The Sudan".

Jonathon · « **Reply #786 on:** March 06, 2014, 10:35:13 AM »

I've heard "the Sudan" and maybe "the Gambia" (but how often do you hear people talk about Gambia?). I don't think I've heard the others.

Ela · « **Reply #787 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:31:39 PM »

Quote from: rivka on March 05, 2014, 04:52:05 PM

There's still The Hague and The Bronx. (Not technically nations, although the latter could be so argued. )

Which reminds me, I've always wondered who the heck the Broncks were anyway. But not enough to look it up.

rivka · « **Reply #788 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:52:25 PM »

Quote from: Wikipedia

Jonas Bronck was a Swedish born emigrant from Komstad, Norra Ljunga parish in Småland, Sweden who arrived in New Netherland during the spring of 1639. He became the first recorded European settler in the area now known as the Bronx.

I am amused that no one has corrected my spelling of The Bronx.

Jonathon · « **Reply #789 on:** March 06, 2014, 07:57:19 PM »

Maybe because I don't see one.

rivka · « **Reply #790 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:05:12 PM »

I didn't expect you to. Esther, or maybe Ela.

Ela · « **Reply #791 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:12:42 PM »

What were you looking for, Da Bronx?

rivka · « **Reply #792 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:14:45 PM »

There ya go!

Ela · « **Reply #793 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:20:28 PM »

And, huh, I never realized that Bronck was Swedish. I always assumed he was Dutch because...New Netherland. And the name sounds to me like it could be Dutch.

Even my husband - who's from Da Bronx - thought he was Dutch. He contradicted me when I said Bronck is Swedish. I said, no, he is, rivka just looked it up.

rivka · « **Reply #794 on:** March 06, 2014, 08:40:26 PM »

I thought he was Dutch too, actually. But I trust Wikipedia a bit more than something I vaguely thought I remembered.

pooka · « **Reply #795 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:50:44 PM »

I haven't heard the Yemen or the Lebanon. I've only heard the Gambia in TMBG's alphabet of nations.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #796 on:** March 12, 2014, 03:58:39 PM »

What about The Congo? I suppose that's trickier now that there's 2 Congos. Congoes?

Jonathon · « **Reply #797 on:** March 12, 2014, 09:14:21 PM »

Two Republics Congo.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #798 on:** March 16, 2014, 09:17:14 PM »

Ah, yes, of course.

pooka · « **Reply #799 on:** March 25, 2014, 12:20:33 PM »

You know, I could never really tell a difference between "that" and "which" until now. I mean, I had a sense that one was better in some situations, but this is the first time I've seen it change a sentence:

Quote

The research rather shows they are potent alkaloids with side effects [that/which] should be used with care.

(To me, "that" points at side effects and "which" points at alkaloids. This is probably obvious to some. Just in the past when someone started talking about that/which, my brain would switch into "I wonder what's for lunch" mode. Kind of like when people start talking about lay/lie. Not quite as bad as "who/whom" which is one of those things that make me want to shoot myself. To elaborate, if someone thinks knowing the difference between who/whom makes a grammar expert, it's going to be a long plane ride.