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

Recently, Wand'rin sent me scrambling for a dictionary when she used the word 'anent' in another thread. I was gobsmacked by what I found. How pleased and surprised I was to discover a preposition I had never known before.

And now she's doing it again:
>> ..happy to see that we have returned to our muttons.. <<

Y'see, I have no idea what 'returning to our muttons' means either.
Finding it in Webster's is unlikely. And since joining h2g2 I'm afraid my imagination concerning sheep has been limited to a series of jokes and inferences involving sordid acts of animal husbandry. It is unlikely that our Head Mistress would be alluding to such things. So, any assistance in helping me to understand this matter would be greatly appreciated.
peace
~jwf~

New Ireland is in the South Pacific.

Ictoan, you can't sidestep the issue of "a number of people was" vs "a number of people were" by saying "a number of people have been". This is treating a number as a plural, when according to the grammarians it is singular. By the strict rules, you should say "a number of people has been...".

A number of people has been spotted arguing about plurals on this thread.

RF

It's from the French: "Revenons a nos moutons" "Let us return to our sheep" being approximately "Back to business" or to pickup where we left off, sort of thing.

>> "Revenons a nos moutons" <<

Cheers plaguesville.
Somehow, even though it begs questions about French commerce and farming practises, I feel I can intuitively trust your answer. It rings with a certain je ne sais quoi.

I also like the idea of being able now to go into the tavern in Port Mouton (another Nova Scotia town) where they have been arguing for years about how the place got its name.

One group (including the Department of Tourism) says it comes from the fact that when Champlain first sighted land in the New World a bunch of sheep jumped overboard and they were obliged to anchor in this bay and come ashore to retrieve the wee beasties. A few sailors stayed on and the settlement was established.

A second more pragmatic group is itself divided between the 'white-caps' that are almost constant in the middle of this bay and the small puffy white clouds that occur uniquely and spontaneously over this enourmous but very shallow (warm) body of water (with beaches of white sand as soft as talcum powder). Both clouds and white-caps are poetically called 'mouton' in French.

But now I can tell them Champlain's log entry and charts refer to getting his feet back on dry land after a long and stormy crossing. He just wanted to get things back to normal and business as usual. The discovery that no actual sheep were harmed in the founding of this town will sit well with the Tourists.

~jwf~

In case your acquaintances are unsure whether you are being serious (as if anyone could be in any doubt) you can quote from dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=to%20return%20to%20one's%20muttons

"A translation of a phrase from a farce by De Brueys"

On the subject of grammar, you should read Kingsley Amis's book on the English language: The King's English. He divides English speakers into two categories, berks and w**kers. Berks are people who use less grammar than you do, which makes them ignorant and boorish. W**kers are people who use more grammar than you, which makes them pretentious pedants.

I think that used to be on lists of books for schools,librarys sylibus
(that was in the days when schools had books) .

Gnomon, thanks for the info, and of course a New (south) Wales in Australia. There must be a New yorkshire somewhere

As for sidestepping the issue, damn, thwarted again!

And on the whole sheep related matter, our local paper is reporting that an elderly gentlement fears his public reputation is now ruined after he was caught by the police and RSPCA in the the early hours of thw morning in a farm shed naked to the waist buttoning his trousers up with a goat firmly tethered in position in front of him. Note he was not arrested for beastiality but for cruelty to animals (the tethering of the goat so it could not move). Apparently he fears people may reach the wrong conclusion. Methinks he doth protest too much!

My daughter has developed two totally different vocabularies and grammars - I guess I probably did too but it is more obvious when you see it in another person. She's a journalist on the first rung of the ladder and I pale when I hear her say, "You've been there, innit?" or "I done it." However she writes beautiful, grammatical English.

I to was guilty of that more so in spoken over phone,
spent several years as floor servise waiter, perfect for my sense of humour,
(so black ,its invisible)Being fully alert bouncy and cheerfull first
thing in the morning, does tend to be one of things you have or have not.

Also one of those things that winds a lot of those "whom have not"

Revenons à nos numéros:

It boils down to this: I regard it as acceptable to treat "a number of" as grammatically equivalent to "lots of", "plenty of", "a lot of", "many" and that kind of plural-indicating adjective -- not always, but where appropriate. Plaguesville doesn't.

But we need to know whom to hang!

What about a discussion on, "What do 'people on the street' regard as posh as opposed to pedantic - in other words, what words are used to impress?"

I've heard some people use "an" in front of a noun or adjective that doesn't have a vowel or an h because they think it's posher.

The yolk of eggs is yellow, but the yolks of eggs are yellow (or white, or green, or purple).

Surely "yolk" in the singular is referring to a substance common to every egg, whereas the word "yolks" is referring to a number of yolks in a number of different eggs.

Or possibly a number of double yolks in a number of eggs?

A million people are PLURAL. Two people are plural. A crowd has always been singular; likewise a congegation is, but the mourners are, the team is but the players are, the furniture is, but the tables are, the government is, but the MPs are.
However, the crowdS ARE getting denser, the congregationS ARE dwindling, the teamS ARE running onto the field.
I'm still with Plaguesville, so he ain't alone.
There are several fuzzy areas that no-one's touched yet. I expect Gnomon to bring them up before my next visit

A lot of people is pedantic.

If I said that this is getting beyond a yolk would I get banned from the thread?
The trousers are too long?

would I get banned from the thread?
thats as well, maybe a brilliant concept,in essence a "eggcelent ideah ,but all yokeing aside, if you play with your eggs in your pocket, Do ? your trousers fit better.

Just had an interesting conversation with my Idian colleague about language. One of his colleagues had sent an email saying 'Please sort out the problem' and I mentioned that this might be seen as somewhat confrontational by the recipient. He then said that one of the problems he had in using english (as opposed to learning it) was the difference between 'will you' and 'would you' to someone you don;t know. It took him a while to, as he put it, 'feel' the difference, and why it is that saying 'will you do this' might not get the reaction he expected. He was saying that whilst they are taught the difference between could, would, will, can they aren;t taught the subtleties of usage and the emotion that these words can convey. I'd not really thought of it like that before and found it quite interesting. Any EaFL teachers find anything similar? I guess there is also the issue that in his native tongue the equivalent phrase would translate direct to english as 'will you'.