Thread: I hope none of you is bidding on this

yeah but there is not many blokes with the camper that have good english like you so you will be easy to track down

Originally Posted by vnx205

As no-one has picked me up on my earlier explanation, I will offer a small modification to what I said before about Ron's grammar.

The more unkind of you may interpret that last sentence as, "I got it wrong".

That would be a little unfair though.

The fact is that Ron might have been wrong but it has nothing to do with whether "you" or "youse" is singular or plural.

The subject of the verb in Ron's heading is "none", not "you".

The issue is whether "none" is singular or plural. It can be either and in this example both are possibilities.

As someone who learned most of his grammar before a lot of members of AULRO were born I tend to automatically think of "none" as being singular; a bit like "not one".

However there are circumstances where it can mean "not any", in which case it would be plural.

So if Ron's heading was expressing a hope that not a single AULRO member was bidding, then "none" is singular and the verb should be "is bidding".

However the topic could be read to mean that he hopes there weren't any members bidding, in which case "are bidding" would be correct.

Perhaps that is what you were trying to explain earlier Ron, when you said "you" was plural. It obviously was, but that's not relevant.

Anyone who doesn't follow that explanation or who doesn't believe me can check in this article:
And Then There Were None
or in one the 1,670,000 that come up if you Google (google?) "grammar none agreement".

So, the ball is back in your court Ron. Were you hoping that not a single member would bid or that no members would bid?

But did any member bid?

Originally Posted by V8Ian

But did any member bid?

...and has our resident sleuth made any progress?

I now have a first name (Stu), a mobile phone number, a suburb (Menai) & an invitation to call around & have a look at the parcel shelf myself. I can also make an offer & take it with me too (if he agrees to the price).

I'll be making a few enquiries on Monday.

I hated English at school, couldn't see any point in it. I could hold a conversation with my peers, spell reasonabley enough to get by when I was compelled to put pen to paper and read, of which I did copious amounts.
It wasn't until I was approaching middle age and starting to write training manuals and lesson plans etc., that I developed an interest in (very basic) grammar. Maybe our education system is trying to ram this type of lesson down kids throats before they are old enough to appreciate it. Similarly with spelling, do kids still have to learn Latin & Greek roots. They were so boring and dry, as a child, but rather interesting now.
And, yes I've been following the thread from the begining, with interest.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

I hated English at school, couldn't see any point in it. I could hold a conversation with my peers, spell reasonabley enough to get by when I was compelled to put pen to paper and read, of which I did copious amounts.
It wasn't until I was approaching middle age and starting to write training manuals and lesson plans etc., that I developed an interest in (very basic) grammar. Maybe our education system is trying to ram this type of lesson down kids throats before they are old enough to appreciate it. Similarly with spelling, do kids still have to learn Latin & Greek roots. They were so boring and dry, as a child, but rather interesting now.

And, yes I've been following the thread from the beginning, with interest.

If they are learning them just for the sake of learning them, then I imagine they are bored out of their brains.

If they are learning them as a means to an end, they are probably getting some benefit.

I just read that 90-95% of all English vocabulary with more than one syllable comes from Greek and Latin roots, so they are a significant part of our language.

However, that by itself is not a reason to learn them.

The reason it can be helpful to have some knowledge of Greek and Latin roots is that it helps with reading, writing and spelling.

An example of that might be someone faced for the first time with the word "vacancy". They don't actually need to know that it comes from the Latin "vacare" meaning "empty".

What they may know if they have some understanding, not so much of specific Latin and Greek roots, but rather the way our language is constructed around those roots, is it is based on the same root as "vacuum". If they have some idea of the meaning of the word "vacuum", they can make a pretty good guess at the meaning of the unfamiliar word "vacancy".

That is only a simple example, but I am trying to make the point that it's not so much the roots themselves that people need to know, but the way the English language is built around them.

They can be a simple way to show the connection between two words to help someone come to grips with the meaning or the spelling of a new word.

Knowing about the derivation of words is a very powerful aid to spelling, writing and reading.

However I might be biased because I am old enough to have studied Latin for the first three years of secondary school. I believe that helped me enormously to understand something about English grammar and vocabulary.

I thought English was a mix of Viking/Germanic/Northern European (ancient), Celtic, Latin, Greek, French and a few more languages.
English syntax is pretty much the opposite to German/Dutch, how does this compare to other languages?

you jest he told me i could programme them there fobs for my old defender i bought two as he said they were good on series as well so bought one for my mates birthday present, then he said they could be re-programmed to open my manual garage so i bought another one, last time he said it would change the channel on the t.v. i told him to stuff it why would i make the wife redundant in this present economic climate !??