Toby has sorted out my naughty font. Fairly predictably it was all my fault. I pasted the code into the CSS that was already part of my template. Oh dears. I thought I had followed the instructions but I hadn't. They were a big lump of text and I didn't really understand them. Toby sorted it out though, as well as my photo.

Joely's coming for dinner tonight which is chili. Or chilli? Toby makes a nice one. Unfortunately we haven't tidied up because we don't care about the house today! Our car has broken again and I feel that, consequently, I don't have to tidy up or do any work. So there.

Oh no. My blog has gone all Times News Roman on me and for no good reason: I added some Google thing that Toby said about and then the font changed. I don't even know why I added it because I'm blatantly not going to get hits on my blog through Google because no one comes here. Oh well.

This photo is determined to publish itself sideways but it looks Christmassy anyway so until Toby can sort it out, I'll keep it here in all its sideways glory.



Paul Dring, writing for this month’s Waitrose Food Illustrated says that whereas centuries ago mulling wine made sense because it rescued it from being vinegary and unpalatable, nowadays, “mulling is a good way of making perfectly good wine undrinkable”.

This is a classic example of opinion represented as fact (for any of you GCSE English students out there). Why do winies (what’s the noun? I’ve adapted ‘foodies’ because I can’t remember) say that mulled wine is undrinkable when it is demonstrably not as lots of people drink it with pleasure? Of course, they are sad about how the delicate process of wine-making is all for nothing in the end if we just add orange juice, brandy and spices to it. But people do like mulled wine and how else are they supposed to make it, other than by using wine?

Oh anyway, it annoys me and I keep reading articles slating mulled wine which, apparently, isn’t a very original topic. Why not tell us something useful about what wine to have at Christmas instead?

Well. Even though I have been blogging much more often than some people, I am not appearing on Toby's recently updated list. Even Dave Atherall makes it onto the list and he has not blogged since the 22nd of August. This is not fair.

Toby and Nick are having some jokes downstairs and I'm missing out on them.

my goodness.

There are funner ones but this iz a grammar blog and that is a grammar cat. icanhascheezburger.com - it's one of my hobbies...

Well, it is now November and I'm back at work. There is a lot of it. I am now not working, I realise, but I have been going strong all week and I'm about to be working hard for another three and a half hours in a tick.

It makes the time go by at least!

Tires...

I just can’t get on board with the idea that humanity is getting worse. What makes people think that it was ever significantly better overall? I know that sounds rather rhetorical but I am actually interested in the answer.

There are some things that tempt me towards the ‘everything’s going downhill’ pov, notably areas of British life that have changed dramatically either post WW2 or post industrial revolution (can’t decide which was more pivotal right now – perhaps neither!):

• Technology
• Communication/Media
• Family life
• Food

There are probably more but these leap out at me.

Technology and Communication/Media, I presume, are more advanced than they have ever been before. However, that is clearly not a bad thing all round. The now hackneyed charge that all the new types of communication are destroying real relationships doesn’t hold much water for me. Without exception email, Facebook, MySpace, msn, texts, blogging…have enhanced my relationships with others. Including my family. Perhaps that’s just me. More serious, perhaps, is the way that modern technology etc. has sped up the pace of life. But is that really the case? All (I can’t think of any exceptions) my friends who have lived for some amount of time in Australia or South Africa say that the pace of life there is so much more relaxed and yet they have access to the same technology in those countries.

Oh, there is so much more to say about my first two bullet points (a little taster: freedom of speech, photography, propaganda, hyperreality, charities, medical technology, the Hippocratic oath, image manipulation, transport, pollution, weapons…), particularly about the press . However, nothing that I think of really convinces me that humanity is being damaged by these in a way that we have never been damaged before.

That’s really the same for the state of family life and food (in modern-day Britain, at least) both of which are pretty miserable at the moment. When were they ever that much better overall? The problems and the causes vary immensely over time and location but there have always been horribly malnourished people and appalling mothers and fathers en masse.

Is the problem facing humanity, in fact, simply that there are so many more of us living on an elderly globe? There are more people doing the same amount of wrong things and it’s too hard (as it always has been) for most people, most of the time to step away from the glory of wealth, the pleasure of a quiet life, the horror of suffering or the temptations of what is just out of reach… to take the long view and act. Earth may be slowly (or quickly) dying but compare its rulers, children, youth, parents, teachers, managers, writers, role models, wealthy, poor, etc. to their equivalents in times gone by and I’m not sure there’ll be much in it.

And yet, we’re still here. Somehow, people manage to scrape away the dirt and find love, dreams, talents, pleasure and hope. That is a sign that humanity hasn't gone down the drain with a final glug. This is too. Whatever rises above the rest.

I just commented at length on Toby's blag and now I feel like I should put a post on mine but can't really be bothered to write loads again.

It was a year ago that I tried to blog every day. That was an effort.

Things I would like to do in the next few days:

• Y11 folders
• PSHE plans
• All our filing
• Varnish table
• Research skips?
• Clear out garage and understairs cupboard
• Marking
• Finish my picture

Just thought I'd write that list there and then. You can ask me how it goes. You probably know the answer already.

Went to see David Ford on Saturday. Brilliant! Apart from some rude people. Tone of voice and kindness/politeness, etc are all so important. I know I slip up in those areas too but it really riles me when people are rude to me! Me, me, me.

Well. Here is another post. I've been put off blogging because I don't know the answer to the among/amongst issue. So I'ma ignore that one for the mo and tell you about a dress.

It is blue, has a swooping v-neck, is baggy until below the hips then tight down to the mid-upper thigh. That's where it stops. I love it. It looks so much better than I thought it would. And it was only £2. Woot.

I also have:

• more tights. Thank God.
• a black skinny polar neck
  
• colourful (easily distinguishable) socks. Thank God.
• vest tops.

Luckily it was one of those trips when we all actually needed everything and we all found it too. So no guilt or frustration.

Right. Now I'm going to go make Cec feel ok about washing up stinky old lunchboxes. She just sighed from the heart.

With love. El

Toby asked me to do a Grammar Thought on while/whilst. I’m struggling to find a definitive answer (art not science) on this but here are the views I have discovered in my (not very extensive) research.

‘Whilst’ is an adverbial genitive
I won’t go into genitives here, not least because I’m only just starting to understand what they are, so focus on the ‘adverbial’ bit of that term… ‘whilst’ describes/adds to verbs so only use ‘whilst’ when the next word is a verb. Otherwise it’s ‘while’:

Whilst speaking her hands trembled.

While she spoke her hands trembled.

I think this view appeals most to my logical mind. Yes, I do have a logical mind. The logic just gets tempered by some other stuff.

‘Whilst’ precedes a vowel; ‘while’ precedes a consonant
This view holds that ‘st’ is an excrescent suffix, simply added to aid the flow of a sentence. Just like we don’t say ‘a orange’ (we add an ‘n’) we’d add ‘st’ (and scrap the ‘e’) to while when saying, for example, ‘while abseiling I painted my nails’.

I’m not sure this view really works as the last sound in the word ‘while’ is a consonant therefore the flow is not disrupted: consonant ending + vowel beginning is not a problem for flow whereas vowel ending + vowel beginning is.

‘Whilst’ is British/archaic/formal/written; ‘while’ is the opposite
The sub-heading speaks for itself. I think it’s wrong though! Well, it’s certainly not true for me. I have, however, read that The Times and The Guardian’s style guides do specify that their writers should only use ‘while’ because 'whilst' is archaic.

‘Whilst’ is temporal; ‘while’ means ‘whereas’ (or vice versa!)
Apparently this is the rule for American legal language. This would mean that both of the examples under the first sub-heading should be ‘whilst’ because they both explain what’s happening at the same time (hence the term ‘temporal’) that something else is happening. ‘While’ would be used to draw attention to a contrast: ‘Karen’s the obvious choice as she is good at her job while Mike is not’. The only problem with this is that it’s not how most people distinguish between the two and you know the deal with language changing according to how it’s used…

So, I don’t know. Sorry. Perhaps just choose one of the options and stick with it so that at least you’re being consistent. Has anyone got a copy of Fowlers? What does that say?

n't.

What a busy time recently. I'm really enjoying my job. Which is making me work harder. But I think I might be feeling a bit stressed underneath it all. Do you ever get that slight feeling that perhaps you're just, but only just, keeping it all together? I think perhaps everyone does but the difference is that some people ignore that feeling and some people embrace it. Not sure which is better. Madness intrigues me because I sometimes think mad people are just closer to reality or a sense of themselves than everyone else. Are the rest of us missing out?!

Don't worry, I'm not belittling mental illness. I know it's real and horrific.

Toby has put Radiohead on repeat because he figured I wouldn't notice and therefore wouldn't complain. Which I didn't. Though wouldn't have complained anyway because I'm enjoying it. A shock for y'all there.

Not my hobby. This guy's hobby.

I have not blogged recently. Dave has put me to shame.

However, I have just overdone deep thoughts with Charlotte and I can't think of anymore.

It is really very cold at school at the moment and I hardly have any jumpers. I think I might spend this evening sorting out my clothes and chucking things out. I'm not feeling very sentimental towards them at the moment and I have had some of them since I was 15 (or younger).

Oooh, I just came frighteningly close to revealing an embarrassing fact about myself to the world then. Phew, that was a close one.

It's nice to be here in New Ash Green. I'm loving all our friends.

It's time.

It's been a good holiday though. Lovely friends and good things to do. I know I'll feel differently about this when I'm 80 but I like how life's flying by at the moment. It's more interesting this way. Bad things are over and done with and good things are always round the corner.

I'm breezy...

Me, my sister and my brother at his wedding:

Put into practise/Put into practice?

I think it's 'c' because I think it means that you take a theory and put it into your practice*. But for some reason (that I can't remember now) I remain unconvinced.

Tell me the answer.

*A little grammar thought to keep you going...if you are choosing between 'c' and 's', you might need to work out whether the word in question is a noun or a verb. Nouns (naming words) = 'c', verbs (doing/being words) = 's':
Noun: Do your piano practice! Why won't you just take my advice? This is my driving licence.
Verb: Just practise the song, now! Why won't you let me advise you? I am licensed to drive.

Did I already do that grammar thought? Oh well, if I did, at least it's in context in this post.

We went to Julie and Andy's and then to my Grandparents'. It was all good. I would post a picture of Julie and Andy's baby but I'm not too sure if it's ok to post pictures of other people's kids...unless they say it is, of course. Although, what about the kid's opinion later on? I don't know. So instead I'll post a picture of Cornwall which is where they live. Here:Now, the other thing was a grammar question. But I've forgotten which one it was. Something about an apostrophe somewhere or some sort of subject-verb agreement or something. I'll have a think.

Is the webbernet resulting in a loss of posterity and status when it comes to texts, images, information, literature...?

Does it matter?

...are always distastrous. Why can't I just get a grip. My whole day would then be so much better.

Well, I haven't posted for quite a while and I thought I'd start up again because I quite like it really.

A lot's happened since March. And nothing has happened. Maybe a lot's just happened to other people and I've been there!

• Paul and Jo got married
• Cec got a job at Dicken's world
• Ol worked very hard
• Strangeday are going to Serbia
• There was Mother's Day, Toby's birthday, Annette's birthday, Sarah's birthday and Father's Day
  
• Annette got into Ridley Hall
• Toby had a 1950s party
• Sarah had a cocktail party
  
• Toby played cricket lots
• Strangeday played some gigs
• I went to the ballet
• I saw Abbey
• Julie and Andy had a baby
  
• Megan and Malcolm had a baby
• Pete and Hayley had a baby
  
• There were Hen Nights, Stag Weekends and Baby Showers
• Imogen had a birthday in a pub
• There was work. Always something happening there.

Probably some other things as well. Here's a picture of Paul and Jo.

I was provoked by something I wrote on Toby's blog to write a post of my own again but I can't remember what...

Oh now I do.

Before you read on, please know that I'm not even beginning to criticise gay people in this post, rather some Christian speakers - happily no one from the church that I am a part of.

I honestly don't know what God's opinion regarding homosexuality is. Some people think they do. Some of them harp on about it without knowing what they're talking about, others have done lots of thinking and research.

Either way, it drives me round the bend when people publicly say things in church meetings that berate the gay community.* Often this comes either in the form of seemingly harmless jokes that we've all got used to or huge statements like, "Let's stand together against homosexuality." Imagine being a gay person visiting the church any time something along those lines was said.

Unless an issue in someone's life (any issue) is brought up with enough tenderness to see that person through the pain of dealing with it, s/he is being failed. Most preachers would make an effort to be tender if they were actually trying to speak into people's lifestyles through their sermons. Homosexuality, though, often seems to be treated as a political issue** (instead of as a personal issue) and fought with the same venom.

People's sexuality is intensely personal and should be broached with the utmost of care. Not joked about or battled against.

*And, for that matter, other religious communities. I think most of what I'm saying applies there as well.

**Another tricky topic: Church meets Politics. A treacle tin of tension.

I did not like January.

It was too busy, miserable weather, I was tired for all of it and (slightly) bad things kept happening.

There were two good things:

• A PERFECT Christmas celebration with my lovely family
• The Strangeday album launch gig

February was an instant improvement.

‘these ones’

• Titles (although it’s often neater to underline titles or put them in italics)
• Speech in real printed novels (bizarrely)
• Sarcasm/irony

• Quoting one or two words only in essays and in life

“these ones”

• Speech when you’re at school/in handwriting/referring to what someone has said in real life
• Quoting longer phrases/sentences (or longer) in essays and in life.

I’m not sure on all these – they’re just conventions that I’ve picked up on the way. Add to the lists if you want.

Also, you need to think about what to do when you want to quote within a quotation. You could use one type round the outer quotation and the other type round the inner quotation. I don’t think I do that, I think I stick to the conventions above but I’m not sure. In this case, I would use whatever way looks clearer for the reader.

The other little tricky issue with quotation marks is whether to put fullstops and other punctuation inside or outside the quotation marks. If the quotation takes up most of the sentence, then people seem to put the punctuation inside:

Lewis also explains that “the average amount of food eaten is in direct proportion to hunger.” 

People seem to put the punctuation on the outside if there are only a few words in the quotation: 

Lewis’s revelations, although rather unexpected, have caused scientists to rethink their theories regarding consumption – a development that has been described as ‘controversial’. 

The rules for speech are more rigid though – there must be a piece of punctuation before every speech mark. Can’t be bothered to explain that one. Just notice it!

Sorry not to have posted a grammar post. I was at a very very boring educational fair during my Friday free period. I hate the word 'fair' in that context. It definitely has the wrong connotations.

This is a very quick grammar thought as I am very very tired.

Active voice vs. passive voice

If you want to make clear who/what is responsible for something, use the active voice. If you want to be more ambiguous or you want to focus on what happened rather than who did it, use the passive voice. There is obviously lots of potential here for manipulation.

Example sentences:

Active: I keep the butter in the fridge.
Passive: The butter is kept in the fridge.

Active: They stole the painting.
Passive: The painting was stolen.

Active: They are repairing the road.
Passive: The road is being repaired.

Active: Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.
Passive: Hamlet was written by Shakespeare.

Active: A dog bit him.
Passive: He was bitten by a dog.