Well well, not only did I totally black out on Wednesday and forget to do anything, but I wake up and find it's July already! Strangely, about thirty people I know all have birthdays in July, with most of them falling in the first two weeks. I always think of them as the Martial Law baby-boomers since they were all born early to mid eighties. So happy birthday all you July birthday people!
Speaking of the book of Face, we had quite an interesting and fun week over on The Bad Article's page there. On Monday, I stumbled bleary-eyed across a link to one of those fashionable 'Facebook Fail' type sites, with an amusingly pedantic slant which we can all enjoy. Haf a luk
hear and C wot U fink.
Early Tuesday I tripped over an old friend, enables to. Check this out:
The availability of consumables in the form of solid wires and modern welding equipment enables to undertake tests of welding materials for operation at higher temperatures.
enables to is a broken phrase that can't be used without a personal pronoun. In the generic sense that we most often encounter it, enables one to would work best. If context or conscience won't allow you to do that though, then also consider allow(s) to/for followed by an infinitive verb with an 'of':
The availability of consumables in the form of solid wires and modern welding equipment enables one to undertake tests of welding materials for operation at higher temperatures.
The availability of consumables in the form of solid wires and modern welding equipment allows for undertaking of tests of welding materials for operation at higher temperatures.
Thanks to Adam Ł. for pointing out the medicinal flavour of infinitive+of, and also for some interesting points which I encourage you to read for yourselves.
Wednesday then saw enables to's best friend, allowed to, stick it's foot out and trip me with This also allowed to avoid the formation of unfavourable geometric structures on the surface. At the time I warned of a possible conspiracy, and asked you if you knew what it was. Niestety, no one replied, and I say niestety because now I'll be buggered if I can remember what my point was with that ambiguous question... I suspect it was something to do with some kind of verb usage without a personal pronoun being wrong and against nature etc.
Oh well, moving cautiously onwards around various potholes and broken stones, Wednesday afternoon broke the stunning revelation that one of punctuation's most divisive issues had just been resolved by Oxford in one swift, brutal move: the Oxford Comma is No More! (Lots of fun links on that page, check them out too).
Thursday brushed rudely by, sneaking an opportunistic hand into my coat pocket, and finding nothing (ha!) instead left a crumpled note there amongst the fluff:
In 1973, new machines were installed. In the next years, the company increased its production by 50%. Written in blood underneath was this correction: In 1973, new machines were installed. In the following years, the company increased its production by 50%. I have to say I agree with this. It's a very common mistake - very common. Although my own explanation at the time was also wrong, the right way of thinking about it is that one can not say 'in the next (time word)' without an intervening quantifier. For example: In the next days, I will be leaving for Rome MUST be In the next few days, I will be leaving for Rome. (uwaga uwaga! In the next several days... is BAD. In the next few days ... is okay. Confusingly, For the next several days is okay though).
Finally, Thursday bowled me over on the corner, kicked me in the grapes and ran off at speed, but not before it shouted a horrible recurring also mistake at me, the gory details of which I leave for you to interpret here. Fortunately, Adam and Sabina were around to help me to my feet and dust me off. Take note of this also character, because I'm preparing an article on it which will come the week after next; next week we'll have our over-due Doty piece!
Until then,
Jim,
Ward 3,
City Hospital,
Dept. of Trips, Stumbles and Falls.
