Grammar Nazi's does this make sense?

[pits]

Someone has just posted this up on that facespace program thing on teh interbutts.

said:

Person X can, nay, will not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!

To me that doesn't make sense, I cant wrap my head around it, I just don't get it, saying they can, 'no infact' will not give time of day etc

How does that work? How can you say you will, follow it up with 'nay' essentially saying 'no infact' I will not do this

[AJS-]

It's a pause and reiteration for emphasis and accuracy. He can not (hmm, not strong enough) make that he will not give the time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate.

[Justayellowbadge]

Grammar Nazi's?

[pits]

AJS- said:

It's a pause and reiteration for emphasis and accuracy. He can not (hmm, not strong enough) make that he will not give the time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate.

This persons starts of with, a positive, going into a pause or reiteration into a negative.
For me it is saying something along the lines of

"I can, no wait, I can not go down the shops for a pint of milk"

I understand the 'nay' as either a negative, or a pause, but in the sense of what I have made sense of it, it doesn't makes sense

[Justayellowbadge]

Person X can, nay, will, : pause : not.....

Better put as

Person X cannot, nay, will not....

Edited by Justayellowbadge on Tuesday 15th September 07:12

[Strangely Brown]

It's not a change from positive to negative. It's a change of emphasis.

Like this:

He can not, nay, will not give time of day...


Edit: Bugger, beaten to it.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 15th September 07:09

[pits]

Strangely Brown said:

It's not a change from positive to negative. It's a change of emphasis.

Like this:

He can not, nay, will not give time of day...


Edit: Bugger, beaten to it.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 15th September 07:09

But there is no not, untill after the nay

[Strangely Brown]

pits said:

But there is no not, untill after the nay

It is implied. The sentence is just badly written.

[digitise]

How about this? I've moved the comma.

Person X can, nay will, not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!

[SGirl]

digitise said:

How about this? I've moved the comma.

Person X can, nay will, not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!

It was right the first time. The archaic "nay" is what's causing the problem here. Try "indeed" instead and it'll make more sense to modern readers.

"Person X can, indeed will not give the time of day..."

You don't need a second comma.

If you really want to emphasise, you could do it like this:

"Person X can, indeed will not give the time of day..."

As noted above, it's a shift in emphasis. "X can't... actually scratch that. He simply won't...".

Edited by SGirl on Tuesday 15th September 07:45

[pits]

Still makes zero sense, this person also seems to have replaced the word 'very' with word 'well'
"My cat is well fat....The writers of Shameless are well amaze"

[Eric Mc]

digitise said:

How about this? I've moved the comma.

Person X can, nay, will not, give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!

I've inserted another comma after the "will not".

It is still is a pretty dumb sentence though.

He is saying that person X CAN give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate but, in the same sentence, he is also saying that person X WILL NOT give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate.

I'm sure that's not what was meant but that is how it comes across to me.

[hugo a gogo]

even if he meant the 'not' to be also attached to the can, it makes little sense

He wil not, nay cannot etc makes more sense, to me anyway

edit: not one mention of the "Nazi's" error?

Edited by hugo a gogo on Tuesday 15th September 07:53

[SGirl]

Okay then. Try this.

"Person X cannot - indeed, will not - give the time of day..."

That makes perfect sense. It's just archaic, which is why you're all anti.

The problem in the sentence is the missing "not" after "can", I think that's why you're reacting to it as not making sense. It's not a "dumb sentence", it makes perfect sense.

You lot should try translation. If you're picking this little sentence to bits like this, you'd never get anything done.

Edited by SGirl on Tuesday 15th September 07:54

[Justayellowbadge]

hugo a gogo said:

edit: not one mention of the "Nazi's" error?

2nd reply...

[pits]

SGirl said:

Okay then. Try this.

"Person X cannot - indeed, will not - give the time of day..."

That makes perfect sense. It's just archaic, which is why you're all anti.

The problem in the sentence is the missing "not" after "can", I think that's why you're reacting to it as not making sense. It's not a "dumb sentence", it makes perfect sense.

You lot should try translation. If you're picking this little sentence to bits like this, you'd never get anything done.

Edited by SGirl on Tuesday 15th September 07:54

Not trying to pick it to pieces it just makes little sense to me, how some
Will then wont give people the time of day for people who cant spell or punctuate etc

[Bill]

hugo a gogo said:

Even if he meant the 'not' to be also attached to the can, it makes little sense

He will not, nay cannot etc makes more sense, to me anyway

The way he wrote it, it looks like he's relaxing his stance.

[SGirl]

pits said:

Not trying to pick it to pieces it just makes little sense to me, how some
Will then wont give people the time of day for people who cant spell or punctuate etc

No, he's not saying "will then won't". He's saying "can't and won't". It's just a device used to emphasise the fact that he really, really doesn't like it when people can't spell or punctuate. It's an alternative to something like "I really WILL NOT give the time of day to...".

You can have hours of fun playing with the English language.

[Eric Mc]

Did he mean to say "person X CANNOT" rather than what he did say - which was "person X can.

The original sentence he wrote contradicts itself and therefore does not make sense. It only makes sense if the word "cannot" is substituted for "can".


If you break this cumbersome sentence down into two separate sentences you can see what I mean.

"Person X can give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!"

"Person X will not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!"

The insertion of the additional word "Nay" into the middle of the sentence does not change the meaning of the first element of the original sentence.

[hugo a gogo]

Eric Mc said:

Did he mean to say "person X CANNOT" rather than what he did say - which was "person X can.

The original sentence he wrote contradicts itself and therefore does not make sense. It only makes sense if the word "cannot" is substituted for "can".


If you break this cumbersome sentence down into two separate sentences you can see what I mean.

"Person X can give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!"

"Person X will not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!"

The insertion of the additional word "Nay" into the middle of the sentence does not change the meaning of the first element of the original sentence.

I think what was intended was the following;
"Person X can, nay, will not give time of day to people who can't spell or properly punctuate! Grrr!"

ie that the 'can' is still attached to the 'not' as well as the 'will'
which is very unwieldy and confusing on several levels

Edited by hugo a gogo on Tuesday 15th September 09:04