A brownie for you!
|Thank you for your effective mediation on the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 article. CT Cooper · talk 19:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)|
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
Have a beer
|Thanks for jointly taking on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems! Having an experienced mediator there is going to be a big help. Have a virtual beer on me :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)|
Have a packet of crisps with that
Thanks for your contributions to the dispute I raised on Billy Fox. The result isn't everything I'd want, but the other editors haven't reverted it and I think your help contributed to a compromise. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Scjessey. Just wanted to drop a quick line and say that in my estimation, the overall tenor of your editing shows that you are (a) a lot more experienced in the Ways of Wikipedia than I am, and (b) an editor who cares deeply on a personal level about Truth and Building a Better Encyclopedia. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)|
Alastair Reynolds and fused participles
About my (admittedly trivial) edit to Alastair Reynolds:
Your original construction is called a fused participle. Here is a part of the article about that in Modern English Usage:
A comparison of three sentences will show the meaning of the term.
1. Women having the vote share political power with men.
2. Women's having the vote reduces men's political power.
3. Women having the vote reduces men's political power.
In the first, the subject is the sentence is women, and having (the vote) is a true participle attached to women.
In the second, the subject is the verbal noun or gerund having (the vote), and women's is a possessive case (i.e. an adjective) attached to that noun.
The grammar of these two is normal.In the third, the subject is neither women (since reduces is singular) nor having (for if so, women would be left in the air without grammatical construction), but a compound notion formed by fusion of the noun women with the participle having. Participles so constructed, then, are called fused participles, as opposed to the true participle of No. 1 and the gerund of No. 2.
Substitute technology for women and being dramatically advanced for having the vote to produce your original construction.
So I'd be obliged if you'd revert your undo.
- I still disagree. I don't claim to be a grammar expert, but this doesn't sound right to me in this context. I need more convincing. From here, it would seem "technology" is a nonpersonal noun. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see that Mr Burchfield agrees that it is indeed a fused participle. He was a descriptivist; but as he was the editor of the OED, and I don/t want to waste your time further, I'll leave it up to you. Paul Magnussen (talk)