Henry Martini | 06 Jul 2016 6:34 p.m. PST |
I find the common habit amongst wargamers of referring to a rule set, rule book, or rules manual in the plural irritating; it jars with my sense of correct English. Yes, a rule set contains a plurality of individual rules, but then almost all books are internally sub-divided in some manner, whether into chapters or subjects. If this errant grammar were to be universally applied we might regularly hear sentences such as the following hypothetical example: "I just read 'Fifty Shades of Grey', and I think they are without doubt the finest literature of the twenty-first century", which just doesn't work for me. I've noticed that this particular linguistic perversion seems to be most often perpetrated by British hobbyists. The British seem to have a knack for twisting the grammar of their mother tongue. I know a senior teacher who finds herself often having to tutor new staff freshly off the plane from the old country when she catches them infecting our children with bizarre linguistic idiosyncracies, such as the substitution of 'stood' for 'standing' in the past indicative tense, e.g 'He was stood by the wall'. I suspect that this practice started as a regional (northern?) dialectal variant that has become generalised. I even regularly see it in published written form in the hobby press. |
79thPA | 06 Jul 2016 7:32 p.m. PST |
I don't see the issue. There is a rule regarding moving and firing. Moving and firing is covered in the rules. |
Mako11 | 06 Jul 2016 7:37 p.m. PST |
I have no issue with them being called "rules", since in most instances, there is more than one rule in the book. Say, for example, FOW Rules, DBA Rules, Battlefront Rules, etc., ad nauseum. Calling the above "rule" seems grammatically incorrect to me, due to that reasoning. |
PJ ONeill | 06 Jul 2016 8:54 p.m. PST |
Taken at face value, a "Rule Set" would refer to a group of rules, perhaps for a game or contained in a book, wheras a "Rules Set" would be groups of rule sets, possably divided by century or type. Just my take on it. |
Extra Crispy | 06 Jul 2016 9:01 p.m. PST |
In the US we refer to the "rules of ____" all the time: politics, baseball, the game. Rules. |
Martin Rapier | 06 Jul 2016 10:52 p.m. PST |
Frankly, I am not very concerned by about grammatical pedantry. English is a growing language, and is itself a mongrel derivation of the tongues of the various groups which conquered our dull and drizzly island over the millennia. Rule. Rules. Whatever. As it is our language, we'll mangle it however we please, whilst reserving the right to be faintly annoyed by the strange spellings of words inflicted by our cousins overseas and odd habit of ending every sentence with a question. But don't listen to me. I'm just a thick northerner wot can't talk proper. |
Fat Wally | 06 Jul 2016 11:32 p.m. PST |
|
Cerdic | 06 Jul 2016 11:59 p.m. PST |
For many decades now, only very basic grammar has been taught in British schools. Most people wouldn't know what a 'past indicative tense' was if it bit them on the bum! The general rule seems to be 'play it by ear'. If it sounds right, use it. In your stood by the wall example, most people will know that using the word 'standing' is more proper but don't really care! A by-product of this casual attitude to grammar could be our notorious inability to learn foreign languages. When I was at school our German teacher, who was from Sweden, had some stuff on the board and asked us to identify nominative and dative 'things'. We all looked blank. So she says, "not in German, in English". We still looked blank. When she realised that we had not been taught such things in English she was unable to comprehend that this was possible! She concluded that we had no hope of learning German because we didn't have the necessary grammar skills…. |
arthur1815 | 07 Jul 2016 2:00 a.m. PST |
If, Martin, your comment "the strange spellings of words inflicted by our cousins overseas" was a reference to the spelling of words such as 'color' and 'honor' in the USA, I must point out that Arthur Wellesley used the same spellings in his despatches. In that respect, so-called 'American' spellings reflect 18th century English usage before this country adopted the modern spellings such as 'colour', and thus have a longer pedigree. It is, of course, perfectly possible to communicate orally and in writing effectively without having any great academic knowledge of grammar. The latter is simply an attempt to codify the chaos of actual usage. In the 18th century it was considered correct to say 'You was' when referring to one person; now, we use the plural form 'You were' instead. No doubt there will be many more changes in the future… |
gunnerphil | 07 Jul 2016 2:15 a.m. PST |
You seem to have too much time on your hands. You can go into a shop and ask " May I purchase the Battlefront Rule book" You can also ask "Can I purchase the Battlefront rules". It is expected that the rules can come in the form of a book. When watching Australia play sport you can say "That is against the rules" or "He has broken rule such and such" So I am talking to someone I will say I do not xyz rules, I could say I do not like xyz rule book BUT that is unclear as whether it is the or the rules within that I do not like. |
Dexter Ward | 07 Jul 2016 3:14 a.m. PST |
I bet you get irritated when British people talking about rolling a dice as well, don't you? |
zoneofcontrol | 07 Jul 2016 4:33 a.m. PST |
Has anyone every committed the mortal sin of using an apostrophe when making the plural of a set of rules? |
corona66 | 07 Jul 2016 4:33 a.m. PST |
I hope you're not a soccer follower because what the Brits do will drive you nuts. How about: " Arsenal are about to start pre-season training." Or: "Manchester United are on tour in North America." Definitely eccentric, but it's their language and I guess they can do what they want with it. |
Who asked this joker | 07 Jul 2016 6:02 a.m. PST |
They are a a collection of rules as in a rules book. OToH, they this is the rule book. It is still a collection with the function of providing a ruling. Either way it works for me. Quite frankly, English or any other language for that matter is not very logical. Lots of rules to follow "just because it is done that way." |
Lee Brilleaux | 07 Jul 2016 6:12 a.m. PST |
There are a number of rules in the rulebook. The rulebook is on the table. The rule about routing is in the morale rules. 'He was stood by the wall' is perfectly valid, being slightly different in intent and meaning from 'He was standing by the wall'. |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Jul 2016 6:21 a.m. PST |
Hey you kid(s) get off my lawn(s)! |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 07 Jul 2016 8:05 a.m. PST |
"He was stood by the wall" means that someone put him there. The verb "to stand" is being used transitively in that sentence. The sentence is in passive voice. In active voice, it would be, "Someone stood him by the wall." "He was standing by the wall" means only that he was there in a standing position. The sentence does not imply how he got there, whether on his own volition or subject to someone else's. "To stand" is intransitive in this sentence. |
John Treadaway | 07 Jul 2016 9:15 a.m. PST |
|
Mute Bystander | 07 Jul 2016 10:01 a.m. PST |
Really, Sir! Don't you have miniatures to paint or a game to play? |
TheBeast | 07 Jul 2016 10:23 a.m. PST |
Has anyone every committed the mortal sin of using an apostrophe when making the plural of a set of rules? No, but I intend to right away. Thanks! Couldn't think of a fresh mortal sin for this morning, and noon is just around the corner… Oh, merde, it's twenty past; wait, the time stamp. I've over an hour! Doug Edit: Henry: I really have to say, I know plenty of 'mericans use 'rules' when indicating 'it's in there.' |
etotheipi | 07 Jul 2016 11:25 a.m. PST |
Has anyone every committed the mortal sin of using an apostrophe when making the plural of a set of rules?
Only in casual conversation. |
GildasFacit | 07 Jul 2016 1:03 p.m. PST |
Thank you Glenn – it just shows that a little knowledge is definitely an embarrassing thing. Someone eventually had to come up with WHY it works, I knew it did but couldn't remember from the distant past why. Grammar can be complex and we do take many shortcuts that ignore rules that exist. We also simplify grammar where its meaning is clear in context – usually without realising we do that. What I object to is those rule(s) writers who flaunt the rules so that their text cannot be understood, even in context. Bad grammar can make meaning unclear or ambiguous – anyone writing for others to use should realise that and make sure their text is checked to eliminate such errors. |
Jubilation T Cornpone | 07 Jul 2016 2:07 p.m. PST |
Hmmm, I think Id better stop using 'Thems the rules' when someone questions me on why there unit cant move/shoot twice! Oddly, despite my backward Northern (Yorkshire) inflection, they seem to understand exactly what Im saying! |
Oberlindes Sol LIC | 07 Jul 2016 2:21 p.m. PST |
Thank you, GildasFacit. Your user name suggests that you studied at least as much Latin as I did. That's where I really came to understand English grammar. |
Henry Martini | 08 Jul 2016 5:17 a.m. PST |
I get more irritated when they speak/type of rolling a number of die, Dexter. Australian sport has functioned smoothly without rules so far, and I'm confident it will continue to do so. |
Ottoathome | 08 Jul 2016 10:51 p.m. PST |
My experience matches with Cerdic. We were taught all these things of cases and tenses, but they did not stay with us because beyond past tense or future tense we do not use it. English is a very work-a-day language. If someone speaks to someone else, and they understand what they said, that's usually enough. On to the next fact to be transmitted. Still, the rules of grammar are there to make language clearer and we should try and do our best whenever we can. I still wish I could speak it better. |
TMP Reader2 | 09 Jul 2016 3:42 a.m. PST |
English being far from my native tongue, I frequently commit not only grammatical errors, but also pronunciation. Fortunately, my gaming group is tolerant of foreigners. |