h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right, I've made the changes that I'm happy to make, and I'm quite happy that the entry is finished and ready to go.

A48970173 - The UK's Mental Health Act (1983) - pageturner

Very well done, Alex. It seems quite similar in intent, if not in content, to our mental health act, in Canada. (which isnt surprising). I am a mental health professional, so i cant really give an opinion on how easy it is to be understood by a layperson, it certainly seems to read easily. It's well written, and nicely laid out. I like that you gave an example at the end. i always like examples, it kind of solidifies things in my head.

(i posted this same comment elsewhere)

"Quite correct van-smeiter, but neither does it imply joint ownership; it indicates plurality"

The sole plurality that need concern us here is that "they" is plural. "Their" is the possessive of they and plurality of subjects does not mean that the usage of "their" is appropriate.

"
Does that mean they all share the same car? No it doesn't"

No it doesn't mean that but that's obvious because the guests arrived in *more than one car*. If your example had been "the guests arrived at the wedding in their car" then it *would* mean they all shared the same car. In your example, the cars belong (grammatically) to the guests and your usage of 'their' is fine.

"
Does that imply that the couple share the same birthday? No it doesn't"

Similarly to your first example, consider the difference in meaning if "birthdays" was singular; "birthday" *would* imply that the couple shared the same birthday but the grammatical problems run deeper. "The couple" is not the same thing as "they"; "they always celebrate their birthdays by dining at the same restaurant" would be fine. *The couple* is singular so we must change your sentence to read 'The couple always *celebrates* *its* birthdays...'

This new phrasing is gratingly impersonal but I take comfort from the fact that your example, by nature of it being an example, would rarely be written as a stand-alone sentence.

A simple rule of thumb when using "their" is to think about who the "their" relates to and rewrite your sentence using "they" to replace 'the guests', 'the couple', etc. If your sentence retains your original meaning then it's fine but, if it doesn't, your sentence needs rewriting.

My issue with the usage of "individuals" and "their" in the entry was that individuals have separate wills. He can be detained against his will and they can be detained against their wills. If we assume that the individuals all have wills not to be detained, then "individuals can be detained against their wills" is ok.

Give me a chance, Alex, I've still got five sections to look through and I've already spotted a mistake in footnote 1! And you've not corrected some things that need correcting IMHO.

It is up to you to be happy with your entry but I feel I must continue to highlight the inaccuracies. I think your entry is informative, well constructed and has a good style but some of the grammar lets the entry down.

I'm not doing this to be mean; you've written a great entry about something I'm interested in and I'd really like it to be spot on.

I hope your exams have gone/are going well.

Van

van-smeiter, I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, but to return to the sentence to which you objected originally:
<>

I think it would help if you were to tell us what, in your opinion, is the correct grammatical construct for that sentence, without of course rephrasing it to avoid the issue. We would all then be in a better position to comment further.

I didn't object to that sentence; I created that sentence as an example of bad grammar. Hence, for that sentence to be grammatically correct, it *must* be rephrased. And that's what I've been trying to explain! I haven't rephrased anything "to avoid the issue"; I've rephrased sentences to make them grammatically acceptable. As far as I'm concerned, the only "issue" here is grammar.

To answer your quesion, a suitable grammatical construct of my sentence would be:

"A man and a woman decide to get married to each other and they invite people to their wedding; his parents and her parents are overcome with joy."

Are you now in a better position to comment further? I would prefer it if you were in a further position to comment better!

<>
So if the cars (plural) belong grammatically to the guests, why do the parents (plural) not belong grammatically to the bride and groom?

I have just read this article as the subject matter is of interest to me, as a layperson. I have found it explained some things that had just occurred to a friend of mine, and I had not known why, until now, so thank you for writing it.

I hope it makes it into the edited guide quickly as it has been reassuring to me and I am sure it would be useful to others as well.
Thanks
------------------

I would also like to say that I find reading texts that are written in a very pedantic way to be off putting and dry. This particular article is not meant to be a legally binding document, just something that would point me in the right direction.

In my humble opinion, I like to use the word 'their' in a sentence such as 'Someone has left their umbrella in the hall.' The alternative, his or her umbrella? too cumbersome. Fair enough it might be grammatically correct or even politically correct. Reading this sort of editing makes me nervous of contributing to an article here.

i was thinking the same thing, Lanza... a little bit nervous about giving my two cents. I liked the language of the article. I think that that other person (name escapes me) was being a little picky.

We are supposed to be reviewing the content of the article. Glaring errors: grammar, repetition, typos, punctuation, house-style etc should be picked up by the sub-ed but they are all volunteers so anything reviewers can point out to the author to fix while it's in PR is helpful, but it shouldn't be to the extent that it is putting off potential writers.

GB

I've changed footnote one to "Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own statutes regarding mental health."

Thanks for the comments, everyone

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done!

Congratulations Alex

yay

Congratulations. An extremely useful entry.

Websailor

everyone