Conference thebay::joyoflex

Were you being facetious here? I thought that your comment on punctuation
in equations was quite funny, but reading on I can't tell. 

Double negatives are often correct. For example:

	He was not unkind.

The mention of the tax cut seemed grammatical to me. (Maybe 'cause I'm from
Washington?) Unclear, maybe, but proper. Multiple negatives are useful when
one wants to convey fine shades of meaning rather than monochrome views.

Yes, many people use "was" in the subjuctive. This has been noted by grammerians
for at least the last century. However, unless you are one of William Labov's
subjects, the correct sentence is "If he is ready, we will go now." English
is Latin, and the verb "to be" is irregular. As a matter of fact, I believe
that there is no Indo-European language in which it is regular.

	Jon

No, I was not being facetious.  Punctuation really should be used in
mathematics.  An equation is not just a bunch of symbols, it is a statement
that two expressions have the same value.  When you see "a=b", you read
"a equals b".  The equation abbreviates English, and it has a subject, a
verb, and other parts of speech.  Thus, it is proper to put a period after it.
If you will examine mathematics texts, you should find the punctuation in
place.

Double negatives are sometimes acceptable, but the statement shown is a little
ridiculous.  At the very least, they could have said "Congress killed the
repeal of the tax cut with a slight margin."  Upon hearing the original
statement, I did not immediately comprehend whether I would have more money
or less.  Did you?

I do not have a reference handy (I should, now that I read this file
regularly), but I do believe the proper form of the present tense, subjunctive
mood for "to be" is "be".  This is irregular, isn't it?

				-- edp

I'll concede the point on the punctuation. I looked through a bunch of my old
math text books and that style was used far more often than it was not. So
it does seem to be the convention.

With the double negative about Congress, I understood it immediately upon
hearing it. However, I got thoroughly confused when I tried to analyze it.
What understood from it most clearly was that the question was not decided.
Or at least, that's what I took the string of gobbledegook to be trying to
tell me.

A reference please. What is third person present subjunctive for "to be"?
Anyone?

Re .0: you say "commas and conjunctions are often omitted [in mathematics]." By
whom? Was it a specific example that prompted this complaint? 

					Val

There was no specific example that prompted this.  It's not really a
complaint, just something to provoke conversation.  Most (not all) texts
are pretty good about punctuation, but when you see papers turned in in
classes, it is usually absent.  I just thought I'd bring it to everyone's
attention.  Using punctuation properly is beneficial, because it helps
you think of the symbols as statements with meaning, rather than just
things you are juggling around according to some rules your teacher gave you.

About the present, subjunctive mood for "to be".  I checked four sources:
	Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1976,
	American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary, 1982,
	A Grammar of Present Day English, 1960, and
	some book in a bookstore.
They are all unanimous:  In every person, the present, subjunctive mood of
"to be" is "be".


				-- edp

Therefor,

		TOYS-BE-US

Tom

"If he be ready, ..." sounds a bit contrived.

An example of the present subjunctive of "to be" in everyday speech
is "Be that as it may, ...."   (I think: or is the 'be' part of 'may be'?)

Ditto the imperfect subjunctive: "If I were you, I would ..."
                                                         
Jeff.

Re .6:

I'm not sure why you think "Toys R Us" should be considered subjunctive.  It's
just a normal indicative sentence.  However, if it be subjunctive, it should
be "Toys B Us".  And, of course, the predicate nominative should be in the
nominative case:  "Toys B We".


				-- edp

We did not have the nerve to include the following instruction in VAX RALLY:


Type "Y<RETURN>" if you want applications using this
data source definition to wait if a resource be locked.
Otherwise, type "N<RETURN>".

Re: .9 --

> We did not have the nerve to include the following instruction in VAX RALLY:
>
>
> Type "Y<RETURN>" if you want applications using this
> data source definition to wait if a resource be locked.
> Otherwise, type "N<RETURN>".


Is that because you figured people would type in the string "Y<RETURN>" 
or the string "N<RETURN>" and then just sit there?  (obvious :^)

Tom ~/~

    Re: .5
    
    > They are all unanimous...
    
    Are you sure?  Perhaps one or two were not unanimous.  "They are
    unanimous" makes better sense to me.
    
    Bernie