Originally posted by BR14
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Minister for the Eighteenth Century
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Minister for the Eighteenth Century"
Collapse
-
Minister for the Eighteenth Century
Originally posted by vetran View Postyeah that is one opinion in a discussion which concludes 'it depends' as it clearly says its a convention not a rule, so its like your opinion as usual worthless.
There’s a difference between being technically correct or not. For the vast majority of us, the difference is immaterial, and “it depends” is a valid position to take, simply because we don’t care. For someone that positions himself as a Latin speaker and send out directives to his staff to be correct in what they do and to “check their work”, then technically improper is the wrong sort of proper.
What you’re doing is ascribing your lack of detail and your lack of brainpower to someone (JRM) that should be aspiring to a higher standard.
So unless you’re an animal doctor that used to do marathons, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take advice on whether or not “it depends” from someone that can’t even spell his username correctly.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostFrom your very own link, seeing as you appear to be unable to read what you post:
To put this into further context for you, as the subject in question (JRM] is the Latin speaker, I would expect him to know how to speak Latin “properly”.
Therefore, he does not check his own work.
yeah that is one opinion in a discussion which concludes 'it depends' as it clearly says its a convention not a rule, so its like your opinion as usual worthless.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostI think Stygian here is suggesting that the article shouldn't be there probably because Latin doesn't have them, which is like saying we shouldn't use braincells because he doesn't have them.
As it seems to be optional he is for once nearly right. Next week he starts on tying shoelaces.
Does "Magna Carta" require an article? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
Since "Magna Carta" is a Latin name and Latin would not need the use of an article then it is technically improper to use the definite article with it.
Therefore, he does not check his own work.
Leave a comment:
-
-
Originally posted by Zigenare View PostTo what are you referring?
I think Stygian here is suggesting that the article shouldn't be there probably because Latin doesn't have them, which is like saying we shouldn't use braincells because he doesn't have them.
As it seems to be optional he is for once nearly right. Next week he starts on tying shoelaces.
Does "Magna Carta" require an article? - English Language & Usage Stack Exchange
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostThe real tragedy is that Mr. Rees-Mogg has an overinflated sense of his own portance, and that people lap it up due to the posh accent and frequent use of Latin.
Put simply, he doesn’t check his own work.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Zigenare View PostThe real tragedy is that he has to explain this in the first place.
Put simply, he doesn’t check his own work.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Gary Lineker and HMRC broker IR35 settlement on the hush Yesterday 09:10
- IT contractor jobs market sinks to four-year low in November Dec 10 09:30
- Joke of the Day Dec 9 14:57
- How company directors can offset employer NIC rising to 15% Dec 9 10:30
- Contractors, seen Halifax’s 18-month fixed rate remortgage? Dec 5 09:59
- Contractors, don’t be fooled by HMRC Spotlight 67 on MSCs Dec 4 09:20
- HMRC warns IT consultants and others of 12 ‘payroll entities’ Dec 3 09:15
- How you think you look on LinkedIn vs what recruiters see Dec 2 09:00
- Reports of umbrella companies’ death are greatly exaggerated Nov 28 10:11
- A new hiring fraud hinges on a limited company, a passport and ‘Ade’ Nov 27 09:21
Leave a comment: