| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
Should the following sentence read: . . . they’d long ago reached that level of engagement in which they could read each other's mind. Or: . . . they’d long ago reached that level of engagement in which they could read each other's minds. ? I've gone blank(er). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
I'm pretty sure it's the first one, but seem to have gone word-blind. Haven't really woken up properly yet. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.163 |
It depends on whether they are in two minds about it. Seriously, I think it can be either. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.177.173.198 |
I think it could be:- "...in which they could read each other's minds" or "...in which each could read the other's mind" | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
The first. Each person has only one mind. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.159.145.163 |
But if you want to convey a concertina of minds - each inferring the next mind based on the earlier inferral and so on - then the second. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
Des, I never thought of it that way. Largely because I never could think of it that way. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.227.90.149 |
If you switch it to the passive voice, your choices become: . . they’d long ago reached that level of engagement in which they could read each mind of the other. Or: . . . they’d long ago reached that level of engagement in which they could read each minds of the other. Which would either suggest to me that the first option is the only right answer. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
Nice one, guvnor. That solves it, then. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.227.90.149 |
You probably would have come to the same conclusion if you hadn't included "each" in your examples which, come to think, is probably an unnecessary addition. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.227.90.149 |
Or, rather, replace "each" with "the". | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.227.90.149 |
Actually, on a third reading, that doesn't make sense either. Disregard! Disregard! It's still early in the morning here! | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.106.220.19 |
I read a music review online yesterday and the writer referred at one point to Gladys Knight, only he called her "Glady's Night", not only misspelling her surname, but also discovering a novel use of the apostrophe. People, eh? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
Oh look, Simon, you sounded all erudite for a minute and now you've just gone and spoilt it all. Or should it be 'spoiled'? | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.106.220.19 |
Or spoil'ed... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I think this is what Simon means as an alternative: . . . they’d long ago reached that level of engagement in which each could read the other's mind. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.229.215 |
" . . . a level of engagement IN which . . . "? I don't see any alternative straightaway, but it seems to me the preposition is wrong. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.229.215 |
" . . . a level of engagement which guaranteed an absence of secrets between them." Or something like that  | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Gary, to return to first principles, I don't believe the assertion made in your statement. Perhaps "...each other's thoughts" would be more credible, suggesting only that they can sometimes tell what the other is thinking at a specific level. Nobody can read minds. If they could, a single thought would require more time to unravel than all the printed material in the world. All those layers, connections, symbols, fantasies, memories and delusions: "OK, you'd like some waffles for breakfast... and that has something to do with Neil Young... and your mother used to cook omelettes... and you love Picasso, but don't know why.... and you think Stalin was responsible for Franco's victory in Spain... and you want to do WHAT to my cat?" | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
"...I think this is what Simon means as an alternative: " Which is true -- I did -- but it occurred to me then that I'd be suggesting: "Hey, you wanna know how you figure out the right word? Just rewrite the entire sentence!" which isn't really helpful at all. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Why don't you just write: "They'd been shagging for years." | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
>>Why don't you just write: "They'd been shagging for years." << .. but they might be brother and sister, Gary! *shocked* I must admit I feel comforted by this thread. To know that real writers like yourselves get grammer blocks like this too makes me feel a whole lot better. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
Well, in fairness, it was only Gary Fry with the blockage, so it really has nothing to do with real writers. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 82.38.75.85 |
*chuckles* And I really DO know how to spell "grammar" - it was just a typo, not a spelling error, honest! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
And in news today from downtown Toronto: a man has been found dead in his home apartment. The killer has yet to be apprehended, although police say they are hot on his trail. One significant clue may be the murderer's modus operandi - repeatedly kicking the victim in the teeth until his eyeballs pop out, his ears bleed and his jaw prolapses. Police are now checking visitors to Canada for anyone from West Yorkshire, UK. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.188.184 |
A case for DI Harris, surely?  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
I regret to report that DI Harris is deceased. He tried to solve a virtual crime and received a virtual knife in the windpipe. | ||
| Detective Inspector Harris's Ghost (Harris) Username: Harris Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.26.90.161 |
But remember whose message board this is . . . | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.183.75 |
Nice to see the good inspector's spirit lives on... |