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

In "One of those bells rings", the subject is the one bell. In "One of those bells that ring", the subject is "those bells", so ring is correct.

W <*>

"One bell rings So one of those bells rings. Subject agrees with verb. Nothing wrong with that is there?"

As Mrs. Beeton might have said:
"First catch the subject."

The lyric is:
"(It was - [understood]) One of those bells that now and then rin... "
So two sentences:
(It was - [understood]) One of those bells. Bells = object.
Those bells now and then ring. Bells = subject.

I vote for "ring" but I'm prepared to issue a poetic licence to cover "rings" for the rhyme, but the licence doesn't cover the adverbial phrase which precedes the verb.

But Edward, (sic) is used to mean "written incorrectly thus" not "should be thus". It's a disclaimer to say that the mistake repeated was not the present writer's.

"It was just one of those things
Just one of those crazy flings
One of those bells that now and then rings (sic)
Just one of those things"

Sic used to show that I know it should be "ring" but I'm quoting verbatim.

I agree with the principle that Burridge espouses: that what matters is meaning rather than some arbitrary rules. However, I don't agree that we should drop the possessive apostrophe on that basis: I think it still has something to offer in clarifying meaning.

I tend to think that anything that makes things clearer should stay.
This is a photograph of my sons
This is a photograph of my son's
This is a photograph of my sons'

i.e. this is a piture of my sons
This is a picture belonging to my son
This is a picture belonging to my sons

Balance of convenience: small gain, large expense (the bother of learning the complicated rule, proofreading . . .) -- I'm for simplicity, the loss of sons' photographs I would say is bearable. Mostly it is a shibboleth, whereby your educational status can be guessed (what sort of primary school you went to).

I'm surprised to hear that Pinker accepts "One of those bells that now and then rings" as following an equally valid rule compared to "now and then ring".

Thinking it over I found myself inclined to allow "one of those bells such as now and then rings", but what is the distinction here? And what is it that I am consulting in my head to come up with an opinion? It really does feel as though grammar is (as Chomsky and Pinker propose) something we are born with.

But on the other hand feelings are notoriously unreliable as justification for anything.

Thinking about the ring/rings one, I've realised it's not really so much a question of correct grammar as of what the meaning actually is. They are both gramatically correct, but mean two different things.

Despite my great admiration for Pinker I don't accept that both are correct. Hence my subject line.

The only way I could accept it is in such a conversation as:

"One of these bells is faulty. Now and again it rings unpressed."
"Where is it?"
"Here: this is the one (of those bells) that now and then rings."

Convoluted? You bet. The sense Cole Porter used? Absolutely not.

Aw, c'mon fellas, didn't you have to diagram sentences in school? Try it on this one. You'll see that "now and again ring" modifies "bells", so that "ring" is the one and only grammatically correct usage, Cole Porter to the contrary notwithstanding. (Although, as a Porter fan, I'm happy to grant him poetic license here.)

I've just been given "Eats, shoots and leaves" - (I'm not sure if the comma is actually in on the cover or not as the panda was painting it out).

There is a hint of obsession with punctuation but we have two very different big growth areas:
communication where people text one another and leave out as much as possible and
the people who create the means to communicate, who have totally unforgiving systems that will not recognise that a very slight misspelling, or a missing dot or comma, gives a totally incorrect result.

I agree with Bomba on the bellringing topic, where he says <>


However, I'm a bit shaky on "that" and "which".


"rings" is right where you are trying to say:

It is a bell of the kind which now and again rings.

"ring" is right if you mean:

It is a bell like that. It rings now and again.

Or explaining it using mathematical brackets (excuse my amateur methods here)

It's just one of (those bells that now and then ring)
(It's just one (of those bells)) that now and then rings

I was wondering if in the second case though, it wouldn't be more correct to say ...."which now and then rings"



And - going back to the possessive apostrophe and manolan and Recumbantman's comments. The difference between

" sons' "

and

" son's "

still exists, regardless of the level of my or anyone else's education. And a very big difference it could make (in probate cases, for example) All right, all right, I've engrossed enough Wills and Testaments to know that they contain absolutely no punctuation, but I still wouldn't want to do away with the distinction. As my engrossing days were 30 years ago, now I think about it, I can't remember if the "no punctuation" includes apostrophes or not.

...


And did anyone read down the comments on the article about punctuation to the one spelt entirely wrong, and partly in txtspeak. Very good, I thought! And proof that you shouldn't be allowed to break the rules till you know what they are.

How engrossing! Now I'm completely lost; legal language is (ahem) a law unto itself.

Which was (when St Paul used the phrase) a compliment

One of Sam Beckett's last stories, "Stirrings Still" did without any punctuation other than fullstops, commas, question marks and capitals. Looking it over quickly at http://mural.uv.es/sagrau/textos/stirring.html I don't see any apostrophes though I may be mistaken.

Written English is a way of writing down spoken English. Full stops, commas etc all provide information that would be in the spoken English in the form of pauses in speech and changes in intonation. But spoken English does not distinguish in any way between son's and sons'. It is entirely deduced by context. So there is a case for leaving the distinction out in written English as well.

'You'll see that "now and again ring" modifies "bells"'

It doesn't have to, though. Take for example

"Who was Charles Dickens?"

"He was one of the great English novelists, who wrote Hard Times".

This is the equivalent of "One of those bells which now and then rings". If there are 10 bells, and one of them rings now and then, 'rings' is correct. If you mean the bells all ring now and then, 'ring' is correct. The grammar depends on what meaning is intended.

Excellent example. I have to concede that one

But it doesn't fit here. I remain convinced that Cole Porter did not intend to convey "It was one of the millions of bells in the world, the one that now and then rings."

I'm with you on that. I don't really believe that's what he meant. What I was getting at was that the line taken in and of itself is gramatically valid, but it doesn't mean what Cole Porter wanted to say.

Gnomon said, "... spoken English does not distinguish in any way between son's and sons'. It is entirely deduced by context. So there is a case for leaving the distinction out in written English as well."

I wouldn't agree, as their are other examples of not being able to tell the difference between spoken language items butt it doesn't mean wee don't bother too right the wan that helps people two understand maw clearly.

Good point.