To be or not to be...
Speaking of Welcome, The Cookster snapped this wonderful welcome statement to perth on Great eastern Highway belmont. We don’t need a neon sign, just some corflute and bunting on this place.
Welcome to Perth
Brett “Free Beer” Treasure posted recently on how he thinks Northbridge should be revamped. Brett had some worst he couldn’t fit in, so he slipped me these two. Tony Barlow looks like it should be a knockshop, or an import export business where no-one is quite sure what is imported and exported. Who would go in there, even at 60% off?
Surely a knock shop?
And another sign of Northbridge degeneration.
Oils aint...
Cellobella also wants you to check out her Royal Show pics, particularly the wooden blocks chocking up one of the rides. Despite CB’s claims of the show being more classy, We’re hoping to delay young master Worst’s first trip to the show for at least one more year.
Worst well this weekend.
The Worst of Perth 
Is not cunt like ‘not bacon’ – meat substitute for the cunt intolerant?
LikeLike
Well, when I say more classy, everything is relative. :)
The most impressive display this year was the judge’s cake decorating display. They made a collection of flower pots completely made out of icing – from the pots to the soil to the flowers, leaves and stems and even the odd snail.
I also enjoyed checking out the caravans and the dog races… with very random commentary.
And I met an old guy crocheting lace chess pieces.
I didn’t try “The Coffin Experience”.
:)
LikeLike
My final words, for now, TLA, on the Town of Vincunt’s Strippers World, are these few.
Whilst it’s true that stripper is not a name per se, Strippers World is, and thus they are just as entitled as Toys R Us, for example, or any other similar entity, to be as grammatically incorrect as they like. Should they ever decide to target the Facebook generation, they could always try Strypazz Wrld!!!!!LOL????
Having said that, were the words “Strippers World” to be used in a context where there might be some expectation of correct grammar, it’s a different story. The decision would then need to be made whether the aforementioned world belongs to, (my imaginary italics), or is for, (my imaginary italics, again), said strippers.
This distinction raises the issue of what Wikipedia refers to as noun adjuncts, or the Capital Community College Foundation’s Guide to Grammar and Writing http://tinyurl.com/4g5uoa states that the Chicago Manual of Style refers to as attributives. Whilst Wikipedia http://tinyurl.com/3ux49b correctly notes that the CMOS “says one may freely decide between “participants manual”, “participants’ manual”, and “participant’s manual”, [5]yet also states that only “guys’ apartment” is standard, rejecting “guys apartment” and “guy’s apartment”. [6],” and that this is therefore an example of where “even style guides contradict themselves”, it does so ironically, given that the example it links to in order to demonstrate that “Expressions with plural possessives are increasingly interpreted as compound nouns with a plural noun adjunct even in cases where this is incorrect because the form cannot be interpreted as not being a possessive, e.g. “mens club” for “men’s club2.[4]”, http://tinyurl.com/4hy6hc actually uses both forms.
The CMOS’ assertion that “if singular nouns can act as attributive nouns — city government, tax relief — then plural nouns should be able to act as attributive nouns: consumers group, teachers union”, is compelling. “This principle is not universally endorsed, however, and writers must remember to be consistent within a document”, the Capital Community College Foundation’s Guide to Grammar and Writing sternly continues, and yes, Saint Paul’s Catholic Church Men’s (Mens) Club, they’re looking at you.
The best guide through this morass I’ve found readily at hand is here, http://tinyurl.com/3fjgjh notwithstanding that although the authors advise that “If the name or title in question is not well-enough established for a precedent to have been set in regard to its rendering, then make a decision based on logic”, they also state that “even if we do try to apply logic, sometimes it is unclear whether possession is indicated or not”, which brings us back to the original question. On balance then, in a hypothetically grammatical context, I’d consider that the “world” referred to exists in order to serve strippers, rather than belongs to them.
On other matters, is that Olive Oil can perched atop some cafe ( or something ), on the south-east corner of Lake and Newcastle Streets ? If so, then I think it deserves a not worst for sheer longevity. I swear it was there at least 25 years ago.
LikeLike
Snuff, I can confirm the location of the industrial sized olive oil can is as you specified and yes, it has been there for many, many years. I worked nearby in the late 1970s and clearly recall wondering just how many salads could be dressed with its hypothetical contents. I agree that its longevity makes it a not-worst; it is hardly a Big Pineapple/Banana/Orange (etc ad nauseum.)
As to the issue of a possessive apostrophe in “Strippers World” -I also agree that no apostrophe is required in this context. I have no doubt the proprietors of this establishment conducted exhaustive research into the matter -most likely through the sources you cite- and spent many sleepless nights discussing its grammatical impact on their clientele. Clearly, they wished to express the idea that their World was created to service Strippers.
LikeLike
Thanks for that confirmation, Vic, although if that’s what you were wondering, I think you could have been working harder. Then again, the knockshop nearby, (across the road on Newcastle, slightly east, I think), never seemed that busy.
Please don’t get me wrong on Strippers World. Whilst, as namers of a commercial enterprise, I’ll defend to the death their right, etc etc, correct grammar is another matter entirely. If it’s a possessive, then there’s simply no issue. Every grammar authority, book, and website tells us that we must add an apostrophe and an ‘s’ for the singular, or an apostrophe, (plus an optional ‘s’) for the plural.
The issue, again, is whether the world referred to belongs to, or is for, strippers. Again, this is only, (my imaginary italics), in the context of a hypothetical situation wherein there is some expectation of grammatical accuracy. When that point is overlooked, everybody’s speaking at cross-purposes. Poor lisa (@ 142 Stripper World Blues) suggests another option; that it’s simply a plural, and refers to the fact that strippers can be hired there, so I guess I should hereafter refer to my phone as strippers phone.
But back to the issue. Whilst I’ll concede that there may be a semantic distinction between a world which belongs to strippers and one which is for them, there is currently not only uncertainty, but outright contradiction, as I’ve cited above, as to whether this distinction, if it exists, allows for a change in punctuation. Now, I love the movable feasts that languages are as much as the next person, and although there are some who say that if I accept the semantic distinction then I may dispense with the apostrophe, I’d currently prefer to politely decline.
LikeLike
I’m actually not sure why I’ve been arguing, as my own grammar on this site is fucking. And the spelling? Santa Madoona!
LikeLike
Indeed, TLA. I’d be done for dereliction of duty, however, if I didn’t. Leave it to me.
Avagoodweegend.
LikeLike
Why is everyone racist on this sight and theres so many stuff related to abriginals and c****
LikeLike
Im Really Fed up with this racism on this sight so forget it this is a good website where people talk and dicuss there veiw. Not a place of racism im fed up end of story!.
LikeLike