OMG (as they say), I wrote my master's thesis about that Botticini painting, although I insist that it is from the Botticelli studio . Fun fact, it was considered heretical, as saints are sitting among the angels, and man is "little less than the angels." I could go on, but I will restrain myself.
You can see it in the National Gallery, London, but only sometimes, as it seems to be moved around randomly, much to my visiting inconvenience.
And indeed I've visited it in London! (Have I ever been in London without at least one trip each to the National Gallery and to the National Portrait Gallery? Absolutely not!)
Bobby Fischer, one of my heroes before he turned feral, referred at least once to a kibbitzer looking on as he played one of chess opponents and commenting on the move he'd made. Fischer didn't think much of such onlookers, but then again, he could be cruelly dismissive of his opponents' abilities too, once calling Grandmaster Lev Polugaevsky - who was a credible contender for the world title - a patsy. Like all of us, he was a mess of contradictions though, displaying a remarkable, almost unheard of for the time, openness about his own shortcomings when annotating his games. He's still a chess hero, but what a deeply flawed human being.
i saw that production of Kismet and had the opportunity to tell Anne Jeffrey’s so 15 years later when on line at the Culver City Unemployment Office behind her and Robert Sterling (OMG, Marian and George Kirby!!).
When you started in on plurals, I thought I was going to hear about "There's more than one" vs "There are more than one" ("There're more than one"?). Of course since the first time you are quoting Hammerstein, you are obliged to use "there's" whether it is correct or not.
Speaking of which, not having ever read the original (or even seen the movie in years), were Julie and Carrie speaking of "sphinx" when they said "spinx"?
Second thing first, yes, Julie and Carrie are debating sphinxes.
First thing second: Yet another reminder to avoid ever beginning a sentence with either "There is" or "There are," which is only ever a dull way to begin a sentence. As to the plural or singular, "There's more than one" sounds perfectly correct to my ear, though "There are a bunch of them" also sounds right to my ear.
Which then leads to the follow-up thought, which I follow through on regularly: When in doubt about the grammatical stability of a sentence, rewrite it till you're no longer in doubt.
This is making me a little bit crazy; "There's more than one" sounds OK to me also, until I think about it, at which point I can't think why it sounds OK or if it should. (The same would go for "There's a bunch of them," by the way.)
Am I missing something? You write, 'we also similarly tend to favor “seraphim” over “seraphs,” and as to seraphims’ Garden of Eden–guarding2 siblings.'
If seraphim is plural, wouldn't the possessive be seraphim's?
(I'm still getting used to your advice to us 's on words ending in s, and X-Ops's, a group in my novel, just looks really odd.)
As always, thanks for the lovely articles and insights.
I actually kept fussing around with that back and forth and finally decided to toss the dice and use seraphims' as a plural possessive, even though it doesn't, strictly speaking, follow my own guidelines. I suppose that I might have gone with "and as to the cherubim, the Garden of Eden–guarding siblings of seraphim," but that would be rather taking the way-too-long way around. I guess the thing about irregular plurals is that they're...irregular.
Well, now I'm just mad at myself! But out of a miffed sense of integrity, I'm going to leave seraphims' in place in the essay, and then I'm going to go sulk in a corner and think about what I've done.
By the way, let's get back to X-Ops, which I overlooked before. If there's a group called X-Ops, then I would certainly go with X-Ops' as the possessive, as, say, the United States' laws and customs. Moses's, yes (for you), but not X-Ops's. Group names do function as plurals.
You've answered a couple of my questions, and I'm honored (and delighted). And in this case, particularly relieved that X-Ops' correct (and to know why). So instead of sulking, take pleasure that you've brought a little joy into someone's world today.
Further fun facts about Lorenzo Da Ponte: of Jewish heritage, he converted and became a priest, and Padre Da Ponte was so bawdy he was requested to depart from Venice (which probably took some doing), and thus he was not only the first professor of Italian at Columbia but likewise Columbia's first Jewish AND first Catholic faculty member. I have been reading, with great enjoyment, Dana Gioia's "Weep, Shudder, Die: On Opera and Poetry," which is nicely written, thought-provoking, and intelligent, but, being me, what sticks in my brain is the juicy gossip. I've always thought wine, cheese, and gossip are better well-aged.
A biography of da Ponte -- I think Robert Bolt's -- was one of my most favorite biographies EVER. I am not really a biography gal, but what a life! There's the part where he is pals with Casanova (and fails to take some good advice about not hanging out with the opera people in London and above all never signing his name to someone else's debt) and the part where he sells groceries on the Pennsylvania border.
Now that I’m fixating: To have Carousel start before World War I and conclude afterward (so that Billy is not the only dead young father in town) could be very poignant.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, or there are more than one way(s) to skin a cat? There are many ways to skin a cat, to be sure, but that's a different construction and a different thought.
Don't we, at least when speaking or in informal writing, use "there's" for plurals ("there's two of them over there") just because "there're" is a bit awkward to say?
I don’t find anything awkward in writing, formally or informally, or in pronouncing “There are two parrots in that tree.” Which, to be sure, is an entirely different construction than “There is more than one parrot in that tree.”
I was thinking specifically of the abbreviations. I would definitely say/write "There are two ..." but would probably say (and maybe write) "There's two ..."
And I don't have a problem with "There is more than one ..."
Extra* points for “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who presumably spent his life in spiteful jealousy over the existence of Real-Dionysius the Areopagite”.
OMG (as they say), I wrote my master's thesis about that Botticini painting, although I insist that it is from the Botticelli studio . Fun fact, it was considered heretical, as saints are sitting among the angels, and man is "little less than the angels." I could go on, but I will restrain myself.
You can see it in the National Gallery, London, but only sometimes, as it seems to be moved around randomly, much to my visiting inconvenience.
And indeed I've visited it in London! (Have I ever been in London without at least one trip each to the National Gallery and to the National Portrait Gallery? Absolutely not!)
Clearly the National Gallery thinks you ain’t no saint, and need to be led astray.
Only When Theres’ More Than One?
And kibbutzes are for klutzes.
Kibbutzes are For Klutzes being the too-easily-forgotten sequel to Subways are for Sleeping.
Got all the episodes on VHS!
Sallie, while grateful, is also facing the wrong way.
Bobby Fischer, one of my heroes before he turned feral, referred at least once to a kibbitzer looking on as he played one of chess opponents and commenting on the move he'd made. Fischer didn't think much of such onlookers, but then again, he could be cruelly dismissive of his opponents' abilities too, once calling Grandmaster Lev Polugaevsky - who was a credible contender for the world title - a patsy. Like all of us, he was a mess of contradictions though, displaying a remarkable, almost unheard of for the time, openness about his own shortcomings when annotating his games. He's still a chess hero, but what a deeply flawed human being.
i saw that production of Kismet and had the opportunity to tell Anne Jeffrey’s so 15 years later when on line at the Culver City Unemployment Office behind her and Robert Sterling (OMG, Marian and George Kirby!!).
Ah, I was obsessed with Topper!
There is little I love more than an irregular plural.
I have been known to write "beaux" for someone with a lot of boyfriends.
When you started in on plurals, I thought I was going to hear about "There's more than one" vs "There are more than one" ("There're more than one"?). Of course since the first time you are quoting Hammerstein, you are obliged to use "there's" whether it is correct or not.
Speaking of which, not having ever read the original (or even seen the movie in years), were Julie and Carrie speaking of "sphinx" when they said "spinx"?
Second thing first, yes, Julie and Carrie are debating sphinxes.
First thing second: Yet another reminder to avoid ever beginning a sentence with either "There is" or "There are," which is only ever a dull way to begin a sentence. As to the plural or singular, "There's more than one" sounds perfectly correct to my ear, though "There are a bunch of them" also sounds right to my ear.
Which then leads to the follow-up thought, which I follow through on regularly: When in doubt about the grammatical stability of a sentence, rewrite it till you're no longer in doubt.
Words to live by!
This is making me a little bit crazy; "There's more than one" sounds OK to me also, until I think about it, at which point I can't think why it sounds OK or if it should. (The same would go for "There's a bunch of them," by the way.)
Am I missing something? You write, 'we also similarly tend to favor “seraphim” over “seraphs,” and as to seraphims’ Garden of Eden–guarding2 siblings.'
If seraphim is plural, wouldn't the possessive be seraphim's?
(I'm still getting used to your advice to us 's on words ending in s, and X-Ops's, a group in my novel, just looks really odd.)
As always, thanks for the lovely articles and insights.
I actually kept fussing around with that back and forth and finally decided to toss the dice and use seraphims' as a plural possessive, even though it doesn't, strictly speaking, follow my own guidelines. I suppose that I might have gone with "and as to the cherubim, the Garden of Eden–guarding siblings of seraphim," but that would be rather taking the way-too-long way around. I guess the thing about irregular plurals is that they're...irregular.
I'm now wondering if, as a copy editor, I'd have let myself get away with that!
Probably not. You'd have reflected on "children's" and decided that "seraphim's" would be the appropriate choice.
Well, now I'm just mad at myself! But out of a miffed sense of integrity, I'm going to leave seraphims' in place in the essay, and then I'm going to go sulk in a corner and think about what I've done.
By the way, let's get back to X-Ops, which I overlooked before. If there's a group called X-Ops, then I would certainly go with X-Ops' as the possessive, as, say, the United States' laws and customs. Moses's, yes (for you), but not X-Ops's. Group names do function as plurals.
You've answered a couple of my questions, and I'm honored (and delighted). And in this case, particularly relieved that X-Ops' correct (and to know why). So instead of sulking, take pleasure that you've brought a little joy into someone's world today.
❤️❗️
Thank you, Rich!
I had occasion to google "meniscus" today in light of a friend's knee surgery and was surprised (and pleased) to stumble upon "menisci."
Further fun facts about Lorenzo Da Ponte: of Jewish heritage, he converted and became a priest, and Padre Da Ponte was so bawdy he was requested to depart from Venice (which probably took some doing), and thus he was not only the first professor of Italian at Columbia but likewise Columbia's first Jewish AND first Catholic faculty member. I have been reading, with great enjoyment, Dana Gioia's "Weep, Shudder, Die: On Opera and Poetry," which is nicely written, thought-provoking, and intelligent, but, being me, what sticks in my brain is the juicy gossip. I've always thought wine, cheese, and gossip are better well-aged.
A biography of da Ponte -- I think Robert Bolt's -- was one of my most favorite biographies EVER. I am not really a biography gal, but what a life! There's the part where he is pals with Casanova (and fails to take some good advice about not hanging out with the opera people in London and above all never signing his name to someone else's debt) and the part where he sells groceries on the Pennsylvania border.
Well! I'll be looking that up! Thank you so much for mentioning it.
Sequel (or post-postscript) on the i in Sahairan?
Straight from Oscar! (I consulted my Modern Library copy of Six Plays by Rodgers and Hammerstein.)
By the way, a great trivia question (I pose it occasionally) is "When does Carousel take place?" People tend to be off by decades.
(It opens in 1873.)
Don’t all Golden Age musicals take place between roughly 1880 and 1917?
I never thought about that!
The King and I starts in 1862, and Oklahoma! takes place in 1906.
But I think it would be really interesting to push Carousel up to 1910 or so!
And I chose 1917 mostly as a nod to the U.S. entering the war. (And thinking of the vibe of The Music Man, which I guess is set in ’12.)
Now that I’m fixating: To have Carousel start before World War I and conclude afterward (so that Billy is not the only dead young father in town) could be very poignant.
re: footnote #3 -- it helps that it's Olympia Dukakis speaking the line.
And she’s not even on screen for the punchline!
You mean “there are more than one,” not “there’s more than one.” Right?
In fact, no, I don't mean that.
I’m puzzled. If there are two or 100, would you say, “There is two” or “There is 100?”
There is more than one way to skin a cat, or there are more than one way(s) to skin a cat? There are many ways to skin a cat, to be sure, but that's a different construction and a different thought.
Don't we, at least when speaking or in informal writing, use "there's" for plurals ("there's two of them over there") just because "there're" is a bit awkward to say?
I don’t find anything awkward in writing, formally or informally, or in pronouncing “There are two parrots in that tree.” Which, to be sure, is an entirely different construction than “There is more than one parrot in that tree.”
I was thinking specifically of the abbreviations. I would definitely say/write "There are two ..." but would probably say (and maybe write) "There's two ..."
And I don't have a problem with "There is more than one ..."
Contractions, not abbreviations
Ah, sorry, now I get you.
I don’t really have a problem with writing “There’re” (very, very informally), but I’m also content to write “I’d’ve.” So maybe don’t go by me.
The thing about writing informally is that it’s, well, informal. And often meant (as Oscar Hammerstein demonstrates) to mimic speech.
Extra* points for “Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who presumably spent his life in spiteful jealousy over the existence of Real-Dionysius the Areopagite”.
*Many.