From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2011 #88 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Website: http://jmdl.com JMDL Digest Wednesday, March 23 2011 Volume 2011 : Number 088 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- NJC Old Friends [] Maybe y'all won't believe this.... [Marianne Rizzo ] Re: for so many years...the stream flows on [Mags ] new oil spill and fracking, njc [Marianne Rizzo ] Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC [Bob.Muller@Fluor.com] Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question [Catherine McKay ] Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC [FMYFL@aol.com] Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question [Gerald Notaro Subject: NJC Old Friends Hey Rich! Been up late tonight partying with Lori from France who used to be around here and is in L.A. visiting. Just now checking the day's digest and it was so great to see your post. I just loved your fraternity tale and didn't remember it from back them. I just kind of lurked in '96 and didn't go public until '97. What a great and funny story! Haha! I think we might have met in San Francisco around 2004/2005 at Joni's talk at the Commonwealth Club. I was with Julius and Darice and remember it was great to finally meet you. Why don't you come down to L.A. in August and join the rest of us for Joni's Jazz tribute at the Bowl? It would be great to see you. Let us know and we can fill you in on all the festivities! Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 07:47:26 -0400 From: Marianne Rizzo Subject: Maybe y'all won't believe this.... that is wonderful Bob. A similar thing happened to me also with the same song. . . (about two years ago) coasting into the auto repair shop barely making it in low and behold: "Help me," joni on the radio I could not have imagined this if it had not happened. Marianne From: "Bob Muller" > But it's true. > > I went in today for a routine colonoscopy (everything was fine) and as > they were > wheeling me from the prep room to the procedure room, guess who come on > the > speakers? Darn right! > > I had to laugh because it was 'Help Me', probably not what you want to > hear when > you're heading in to a medical procedure. Anyway, it was a comfort. I took > it as > a sign that all would go well, which it did. > > Bob > > NP: John Mellencamp, "In Our Lives" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:12:13 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: NJC Old Friends Came across as you always have Rich, warm and friendly. I hope this a permanent return! Most friends fade Or they don't make the grade. New ones are quickly made, Perfect as long as they're new. But us, old friends, What's to discuss, old friends? Here's to us! Who's like us? Damn few! Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Rich Newirth wrote: > And I fondly remember my colleagues back then, even if we never met. Sue > McNamara, Jerry Notaro, Mark from Seattle, and later Kakhi, Paz, et. al. > And > especially Les, and the late Wally Breese. Please know that you will > always have a treasured place in my heart. > > My best to you (ironic in my dotage to ask whether I'm correct in > remembering that phrase from Taming of the Tiger days? I'm sorry if this > comes across blasphemous.) > > Rich > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Les Irvin wrote: > > > So good to hear from you, my friend. Rich was one of the very first > people > > on the JMDL, I think he was number 8 or something. In those early days > he > > tirelessly helped me get the word out about the fledgling list. Because > of > > his efforts, the list grew to over 100 people in just a few days. If I > wore > > a hat, Rich, it would be off right now. > > > > > > On 3/22/2011 8:31 PM, Rich Newirth wrote: > > > >> Thanks, Les, for that archival link. I've not really resurfaced but it > >> was > >> quite an experience to see a post of mine way back from 1996. Many fond > >> memories. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Mags Subject: Re: for so many years...the stream flows on Another example of your wonderful writing and to the point, spot on reflections that I so love about you. A great big me too on so many points ah heck on all of them. I was about 20 when I first heard Court and Spark and was so moved by it I had to phone the radio station to ask who on earth this was. I was knocked flat on my emotional @ss by the reflections within the songs of Court and Spark. I so often wondered how on earth someone vocalize the same sad situations that I felt at that time in my life. The Billie Holiday lyric that you posted is remarkable and I thank you for the comparison to the feel of Joni's songs on Court and Spark. As we know, Joni is a big fan of Billie's . Remarkable insights there, Mark. I'm loving this revisit to Court and Spark. And reading all of the impressions, again and again. love, Mags ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:19:18 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" And the classic Nazareth cover sings: "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent with the rock rhythm they put behind it) The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: "should have not got on this flight tonight" So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new stuff. Bob NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:38:53 EDT From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC In a message dated 3/23/2011 1:24:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Bob.Muller@Fluor.com writes: > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > > heading for Beijing, China. I'm the worse person to ask about grammar, but just wanted to say you'll be missed Bob. Hope you have a great time over there. Post when you can, and make sure you send pics to Nate, so he can post them on your FB account. Jimmy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:46:10 +0000 From: Paul Castle Subject: 'Joni' by Mathias Eick Really like this instrumental by Norwegian trumpeter Mathias Eick from his new ECM release 'Skala' - Listen @ http://blip.fm/~130y22 In the press release for the album he writes: Joni is, of course, for Joni Mitchell, whose work Eick has long admired. A specific association here is Both Sides Now in the orchestral arrangement of Vince Mendoza. I was really touched when I heard that. This piece of mine, Joni, is also several years old. When I had the right musicians in place, like the strong band here, it seemed a good opportunity to look again at some older pieces and set them amongst the newer tunes, to shape an album. see http://bit.ly/dQsT86 best to all PaulC ____________________ http://blip.fm/paulcastle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:46:07 -0400 From: Marianne Rizzo Subject: new oil spill and fracking, njc http://www.ecorazzi.com/2011/03/23/new-gulf-oil-spill-found-slicks-may-be-spr eading/ NEW Oil slick "The Gulf cant seem to catch a break. Its now being reported that an oily slick was seen washing ashore over the weekend at Grand Isle on the Louisiana Gulf Coast." "The source of the oil, according to the Times Picayune, is Houston based company, Anglo-Suisse Offshore Partners, a group that has taken responsibility for leaking crude oil from a non-producing well. The oil has thus contaminated the Louisiana coastal beaches and wetlands, creating a slick that has spread for miles offshore." So there is yet another oil spill. . look and listen for details. I suspect you all are inundated so it may be difficult to take this all in. Well, one thing you can do it vote and let your feelings be known about the need for alternative energy and also CONSERVATION. (and windmills are not so bad. . . we' have got to entertain all kinds of passive non polluting sources). ALSO, SAY NO TO hYDRO FRACKING AS IT PUMPS DANGEROUS CHEMICALS IN THE EARTH (CARCINOGENIC CHEMICALS) and others. . . many chemicals . . . as a way to release natural gas. Who is on what tonic? and they are trying to do this in NY state . . . and governor Cuomo is not convinced yet that it is ,in fact, dangerous and the chemicals are leaching into the drinking water. .. . they are doing it in Pennsylvania (see the movie "gasland.") or look this upon the internet. We must let our views be known. we have got to think about the next generations. The indians believe in preparing for seven generations (beautiful) . . . I believe in preparing for the future of the entire history of the earth. "the frog does not drink the pond in which s/he lives." India proverb I care about our childrens' children. As I assume you do. stardust golden Marianne ps. Nukes s*ck ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:49:53 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC That would be "worst", Jimmy. :-) I'll do my best to share as much and as often as I can. I'll be deeply entrenched in work (for a change). Bob NP: Paul McCartney "Lonesome Town" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:02:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I'm sure I've said both "got" and "gotten." And I'm no grammar expert, so which one is correct has baffled me and, when that happens, I usually look for other ways of saying things. However, I understand that "gotten" may be more common in the US, whereas "got" is more common in the UK. My ambivalence may arise from being Canadian, where we get info from both sides. Joni's just enough older than me to have had what was probably a more "British" type of education. Found this on MIT's website: "Get is the present tense form of the verb. Got is the past tense form as well as one of the two alternatives for the past participle. The other alternative for the past participle is gotten, which is generally preferred in the United States. " http://www.mit.edu/course/21/21.guide/get-got.htm I'd accept both Joni's and Nazareth's version, by Hydra's is weird. They're not English-speaking, are they? And then again, there's good old, "should of" that many people use for "should have" (probably because people shorten "should have" to "should've" which sounds like "should of." How about, "I shoulda not oughta got on this flight tonight?" Holy crap! You're heading to China TOMORROW? BON VO-YA-GEEEE! I hope this is a wonderful experience for you and please stay in touch! - ----- Original Message ---- > From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" > To: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 1:19:18 PM > Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:10:04 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC Lots of my friends do that and it's infuriating. "Must have" becomes "must of", "would have" becomes "would of", and so on. Bob Murphy's pet peeve was people who put the apostrophe in "its" when it didn't belong. Bob NP: Prince, "The Marrying Kind" (he'll be in town next week - just one of a BUNCH of good local shows I will miss) - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:16:53 -0500 From: Michael Paz Subject: Re: NJC Old Friends Hi Rich Welcome back. Come on to LA in August. Best Paz Michael Paz michael@thepazgroup.com Tour Manager Preservation Hall Jazz Band http://www.preservationhall.com On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Rich Newirth wrote: And I fondly remember my colleagues back then, even if we never met. Sue McNamara, Jerry Notaro, Mark from Seattle, and later Kakhi, Paz, et. al. And especially Les, and the late Wally Breese. Please know that you will always have a treasured place in my heart. My best to you (ironic in my dotage to ask whether I'm correct in remembering that phrase from Taming of the Tiger days? I'm sorry if this comes across blasphemous.) Rich On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Les Irvin wrote: > So good to hear from you, my friend. Rich was one of the very first people > on the JMDL, I think he was number 8 or something. In those early days he > tirelessly helped me get the word out about the fledgling list. Because of > his efforts, the list grew to over 100 people in just a few days. If I wore > a hat, Rich, it would be off right now. > > > On 3/22/2011 8:31 PM, Rich Newirth wrote: > >> Thanks, Les, for that archival link. I've not really resurfaced but it >> was >> quite an experience to see a post of mine way back from 1996. Many fond >> memories. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:23:51 EDT From: FMYFL@aol.com Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC In a message dated 3/23/2011 2:15:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Bob.Muller@Fluor.com writes: > > > That would be "worst", Jimmy. :-) > > See????? You should have asked Jerry. He's a libarian. LOL ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:38:55 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob > > NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC Oh, Jeebus, don't get me started on that. I see the "it's/its" mistake everywhere, even from people I would have (woulda) thought knew better. > >From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" >To: Catherine McKay >Cc: joni@smoe.org >Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:10:04 PM >Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC > >have"> > >Lots of my friends do that and it's infuriating. "Must have" becomes "must of", >"would have" becomes "would of", and so on. > > >Bob Murphy's pet peeve was people who put the apostrophe in "its" when it didn't >belong. > > >Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:23:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Yabbut, yabbut... If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't have a pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot to pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) So: I should not get on this flight tongight. I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. - ----- Original Message ---- > From: Gerald Notaro > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > Cc: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:31:37 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big difference. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > Yabbut, yabbut... > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > have a > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot > to > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > So: > I should not get on this flight tongight. > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gerald Notaro > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > be > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:59:14 -0400 From: Susan Tierney McNamara Subject: RE: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question "I should not have gotten on this flight tonight" I'm not singing that! It's hard enough staying out of the way of the slack string!! - -----Original Message----- From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Notaro Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:32 PM To: Catherine McKay Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big difference. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > Yabbut, yabbut... > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > have a > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot > to > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > So: > I should not get on this flight tongight. > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Gerald Notaro > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > be > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:03:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I misread your statement to begin with. Sorry about that. But I think it's the difference between the preferred American usage (have gotten) and the (I think) preferred British usage (have got.) So, not really a question of right or wrong, but of the different ways we speak or write certain things. > >From: Gerald Notaro >To: Catherine McKay >Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org >Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 3:31:37 PM >Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > >The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in this >case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is not I have >got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that plane tonight. Big >difference. > >Jerry > > > >On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay wrote: > >Yabbut, yabbut... >>If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't have a >>pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a pot to >>pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is redundant. >> >>But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on a >>flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) >>So: >>I should not get on this flight tongight. >>I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. >> >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Gerald Notaro >>> To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com >>> Cc: joni@smoe.org >>> Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question >>> >>> Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it be >>> be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. >>> >>> Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:01:18 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Hi Bob, since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a distraction, I'll chip in as well. First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you add a negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so that's a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not have got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it means people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" can be abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not mean it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought the person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days so little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I have people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't feel too bad. And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the English language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It has been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If I had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have that time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline you can click on. And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_embed.shtml Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of people hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van Gogh exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: "Isn't it great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" All the best, Lieve in London ________________________________ From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" To: joni@smoe.org Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" And the classic Nazareth cover sings: "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent with the rock rhythm they put behind it) The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: "should have not got on this flight tonight" So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new stuff. Bob NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:08:11 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Hey, it is rock and roll. You always sing any music the way it is written. Joni's lyrics reflects the vernacular of her characters, not the Queen's English. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Susan Tierney McNamara wrote: > "I should not have gotten on this flight tonight" > > I'm not singing that! It's hard enough staying out of the way of the slack > string!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-joni@smoe.org [mailto:owner-joni@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Gerald > Notaro > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:32 PM > To: Catherine McKay > Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > The have is this case has nothing to do with owning something. The have in > this case refers to a tense, which means it must be gotten, not got. It is > not I have got a cold, but tense related, I should have gotten on that > plane > tonight. Big difference. > > Jerry > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Catherine McKay >wrote: > > > Yabbut, yabbut... > > If it was about not having something (or not having it), as in, "I don't > > have a > > pot to pee in," I agree that it's better than saying, "I haven't got a > pot > > to > > pee in," if only because it's fewer words, so the "got" part is > redundant. > > > > But the song is about getting on a flight (or not.) (Do we really get on > a > > flight? No, I think we get on a plane.) > > So: > > I should not get on this flight tongight. > > I should not have got/gotten on this flight tonight. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > > From: Gerald Notaro > > > To: Bob.Muller@fluor.com > > > Cc: joni@smoe.org > > > Sent: Wed, March 23, 2011 2:38:55 PM > > > Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > > > > > Both are incorrect, grammatically. The "have" makes it necessary for it > > be > > > be gotten to be correct. Others may disagree, but that is my opinion. > > > > > > Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:10:57 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@Fluor.com Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC Thanks for that, Lieve - I don't have any problem being a language nerd or feel a need to defend myself for being correct. I've had a couple of folks who have defriended me on Facebook because I corrected their grammar (or as they would say "correct there grammar"). The latest was a guy who said he wanted to "sore like an eagle". Ugh. I definitely did not know that "gotten" was strictly an American thing so thanks to you & Catherine for making me smarter. I do realize as well that writing songs sometimes requires a bit of twisting of language. Stevie Wonder is probably the biggest offender ("then my only worry was for christmas what would be my toy" - yikes!) but he gets a total pass from me because I love his music so much. Bob NP: Foo Fighters, "I'll Stick Around" - ------------------------------------------------------------ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:38:58 +0000 From: Anita G Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question NJC Its jest won of dem fings wot git people narked, innit? N dont even menshum txt tork to me. LEEVE IT AHT, A Needer On 23 March 2011 20:10, wrote: . I've had a couple of folks > who have defriended me on Facebook because I corrected their grammar (or > as they would say "correct there grammar"). The latest was a guy who said > he wanted to "sore like an eagle". Ugh. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:46:04 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question My blue-haired teacher in boarding school taught us NEVER to use the word "gotten." Her little maxim was "Gotten is Rotten." - -- Deb Messling dlmessling@gmail.com http://bookbook.typepad.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:28:01 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I will argue the point with you, Lieve. The usage of gotten as a past participle is very much British, though more uncommon now among the British. It is more Old English than American, though still used here through the colonists. That doesn't make it incorrect at all, just different from modern British usage. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: > Hi Bob, > since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a > distraction, I'll chip in as well. > > First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. > > Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly > speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you > add a > negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so > that's > a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both > > versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not > have > got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. > > > I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it > means > people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" > can be > abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not > mean > it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought > the > person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days > so > little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at > > school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write > properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I > have > > people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't > feel too > bad. > > And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the > British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the > English > > language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It > has > been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If > I > > had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have > that > time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: > http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent > alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline > you can > click on. > And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the > subject: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_embed.shtml > > > Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of > people > hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van > Gogh > > exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: > "Isn't it > great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" > All the best, > Lieve in London > > > > ________________________________ > From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" > To: joni@smoe.org > Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 > Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > > I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice > (as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > > "I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > > And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > > "should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent > with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > > The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > > "should have not got on this flight tonight" > > So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I > suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in > one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see > if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > > And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the > metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > > And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and > heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo > address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and > posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return > (late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new > stuff. > > Bob > > NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. > If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are > hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, > distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon > this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please > contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual > sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. > ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:07:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question Jerry, I think we agree, actually! I did not say that "gotten" was wrong at all. All I meant to say in shorthand was that "gotten" is now mainly used in American English - and true, it's old English (as in "ill gotten gains") but that "got" is not wrong, it is the correct past participle in current British English. (Just as quoted by Catherine from the grammar book.) All the best, Lieve ________________________________ From: Gerald Notaro To: Lieve Reckers Cc: Bob.Muller@fluor.com; joni@smoe.org Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 21:28:01 Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question I will argue the point with you, Lieve. The usage of gotten as a past participle is very much British, though more uncommon now among the British. It is more Old English than American, though still used here through the colonists. That doesn't make it incorrect at all, just different from modern British usage. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: Hi Bob, >since I love grammar and anything else to do with language, and need a >distraction, I'll chip in as well. > >First of all, "gotten" is American English, so "got" is perfectly correct. > >Secondly, the difference between the 2 sentences you quote, lies strictly >speaking not in the grammar but in the meaning (i.e. in the first case you add a >negative to "should have", and in the second case you add it to "got", so that's >a choice you have depending on what you want to say). But in the end both > >versions virtually lead to the same conclusion, and certainly "should not have >got on this flight tonight" is the more usual syntax. > > >I also agree with you that the mistake "should of" is awful, because it means >people really don't know what they are saying: just because "should have" can be >abbreviated to "should've" and therefore SOUNDS LIKE "should of" does not mean >it makes any sense! The first time I came across this mistake I thought the >person in question was almost illiterate. Then I realised that these days so >little attention is paid to grammar (and spelling and punctuation etc) at > >school, that many intelligent people now end up almost unable to write >properly. Yes I know, I sound like a school mistress. But as long as I have > >people like good old Smurph and Catherine (and you) on my side, I don't feel too >bad. > >And yesterday, I went with my oldest son to a wonderful exhibition at the >British Library, called Evolving English. It shows the evolution of the English > >language from Anglo Saxon to the present day (in all its diversity). It has >been running for about 3 months and will close at the end of next week. If I > >had more time I'd write a long post about it, but I'm afraid I don't have that >time, so here is a link for those who may want to find out more: >http://www.bl.uk/evolvingenglish/about.html It really is an excellent >alternative to being at the exhibition itself, with a wonderful timeline you can >click on. >And then there is this delightful BBC interactive site on the >subject: >http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/language_timeline/index_e mbed.shtml > > > >Anyway, what I wanted to say is: I was delighted to see the masses of people >hovering over all the exhibits, as if they were at a popular Picasso or Van Gogh > >exhibition rather than this display of old texts, so I said to my son: "Isn't it >great to know we are not the only language nerds in town!" >All the best, >Lieve in London > > > >________________________________ >From: "Bob.Muller@Fluor.com" >To: joni@smoe.org >Sent: Wed, 23 March, 2011 17:19:18 >Subject: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question > >I was listening to a This Flight Tonight cover yesterday and took notice >(as I typically do) when I heard a lyrical difference. Where Joni sings: > >"I shouldn't have got on this flight tonight" > >And the classic Nazareth cover sings: > >"should not have got on this flight tonight" (to make it more consistent >with the rock rhythm they put behind it) > >The Hydra cover I was listening to sang: > >"should have not got on this flight tonight" > >So I was wondering which of the latter two was better grammatically. I >suppose the verb should be "gotten" anyway so all of them are flawed in >one way or another. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there to see >if any of my fellow grammar enthusiasts had any thoughts on the matter. > >And whether or not you like the Nazareth cover, I'm sure it and all the >metal covers it spawned has made Joni LOTS of royalty pennies. > >And speaking of getting on flights, I'll be boarding tomorrow morning and >heading for Beijing, China. Not sure if I'll be able to access my Yahoo >address but I will be able to get to this one so I'll still be reading and >posting when I can. Joni Covers Central will be on hiatus until my return >(late July/Early August), when I will release a furious onslaught of new >stuff. > >Bob > >NP: Johnny Mercer, "Emily" >------------------------------------------------------------ >The information transmitted is intended only for the person >or entity to which it is addressed and may contain >proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. >If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are >hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, >distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon >this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please >contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > >Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual >sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. >------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:15:26 -0400 From: Gerald Notaro Subject: Re: This Flight Tonight Grammar Question From grammarphobia.com. A wonderful explanation that there is a distinction of usage, and that it is correct and useful: TOMBSTONE: Use have got, not have gotten. R.I.P. People who take this prohibition seriously have gotten their grammar wrong. At one time, everyone agreed that the verb get had two past participles: got and gotten. (The past participle is the form of a verb that's used with have, had, or has.) It's true that the British stopped using have gotten about 300 years ago, while we in the Colonies kept using both have got and have gotten. But the result is not that Americans speak improper English. The result is that we have retained a nuance of meaning that the unfortunate Britons have lost. When we say, Bruce has got three Armani suits, we mean he has them in his possession. It's another way of saying he has them. When we say, Bruce has gotten three Armani suits, we mean he's acquired or obtained them. It's a very useful distinction, and one that the British would do well to reacquire. Jerry On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Deb Messling wrote: > > My blue-haired teacher in boarding school taught us NEVER to use the word > "gotten." Her > little maxim was "Gotten is Rotten." > > > -- > Deb Messling > dlmessling@gmail.com > http://bookbook.typepad.com/blog/ ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2011 #88 **************************** ------- To post messages to the list, send to joni@smoe.org. Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------