Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
Is it possible to fix the grammar in the description (on the movie page 5159M as well as those of obsoleted runs and anywhere else this particular description is used)? It should be "don't", not "doesn't", in "Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that doesn't feature Sonic himself."
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6437
Location: The land down under.
"Doesn't" is the correct English in that sentence.
Read it out loud without the contraction with how it currently looks as the publication and then with your suggestion.
"Doesn't" in the sentence without the contraction:
Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that does not feature Sonic himself.
Here's your "don't" suggestion without the contraction:
Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that do not feature Sonic himself.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
Spikestuff wrote:
"Doesn't" is the correct English in that sentence. Read it out loud without the contraction as is and with your suggestion.
Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that does not feature Sonic himself.
Here's your "don't" suggestion:
Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that do not feature Sonic himself.
No, "don't" is correct. There are many Sonic games, but FEW that DO NOT feature Sonic, and Chaotix is one of those few. If you reword the "doesn't" sentence to make IT clearer, you get this: Of the few Sonic games (no qualifier), Knuckles' Chaotix is one that doesn't feature Sonic himself. Obviously there are more than a few Sonic games; the restrictive relative clause about not featuring Sonic has to restrict THAT category. Attaching the relative clause to Chaotix/one makes it nonrestrictive, parenthetical, a side note the sentence could do without, and "Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games" obviously is not the intended meaning.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
The sentence can work both ways, you might read out the sentence thinking the verb connects to games, but you might also interpret it as the verb connecting to "one of" as in any particular one of those games, therefore singular.
Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
The sentence can work both ways, you might read out the sentence thinking the verb connects to games, but you might also interpret it as the verb connecting to "one of" as in any particular one of those games, therefore singular.
As I've pointed out, if you interpret the verb (and the rest of that clause) as referring to "one", that leaves "the few Sonic games" out without anything to make it specific enough. It loses the intended semantic meaning and indeed includes a falsehood. Rewriting the sentence AGAIN, "Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games, one that doesn't feature Sonic himself", may help illustrate this. There are not only a few Sonic games. There ARE only a few Sonic games that DON'T feature Sonic. If you're going to say "the few Sonic games" at all, it must be restricted in some way. Of course, by including Chaotix as one of those few Sonicless games, the logical implication is that Chaotix also does not feature Sonic, so there's nothing lost by treating the verb correctly as plural (referring to games) without explicitly connecting the Sonicless nature to Chaotix too. In fact, coining the term Sonicless helps me illustrate this another way, because that adjective may replace the relative clause closer to the noun. Would you say Chaotix is a Sonicless one of the few Sonic games, or Chaotix is one of the few Sonicless games? I know which I'd say!
This is a common mistake in writing and in speech (especially when "the few" or "the only" is instead a word like "these" or "those"), and some constructions and examples may technically, if awkwardly, be interpreted correctly with either verb number, but X is one of [some] Ys that Z(s) should almost always have a plural verb syntactically. Diagram a sentence or two.
I find it more intriguing that a user joined 8 hours ago, made all 4 posts in this topic, and has no other activity other than correcting a perceived grammatical error.
That's dedication. Who... are you?
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Yeah, I'll have to agree with "doesn't" being correct.
Knuckles' Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that doesn't feature Sonic himself.
Maybe this would be an easier way to know that this is correct: take out every word in that sentence except "one" and "that doesn't."
Original:
one that doesn't
htwh's suggestion:
one that don't
If we were to use either phrase in normal cases, we can't say "There's one thing that don't seem to be new," but we can say, "There's one thing that doesn't seem to be new."
Hopefully this doesn't count as an intrusion... I thought I'd like to barge in and make this quick correction.
Yaaay, I'm an active player now! :D (as of 11/9/2024) Thanks to TASVideos for the support, they're awesome.
I'm Asumeh, semi-expert SMB1 TASer. :)
Check out some of the TASes I don't submit/upload to TASVideos on my YouTube channel, if you'd like.
In progress:
- Extra Mario Bros. (redo) (with HappyLee and w7n) - I'm currently assisting with finding improvements before the boss. On hold; we're currently struggling to confirm that we have the fastest route. Some debugging may also help with finding glitch exits, but neither of us are experts in that field.
- Record my older TASes (excluding any obsolete TASes) and upload to YouTube.
Check out my other links here. (Mostly WIP hehe)
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
OtakuTAS wrote:
Who... are you?
I am the terror that flaps in the night. Maybe a humble lurker wouldn't need to make a forum account if this site gave any way to just drop a polite email for a minor correction or site-related feedback.
Αsumeh wrote:
If we were to use either phrase in normal cases, we can't say "There's one thing that don't seem to be new," but we can say, "There's one thing that doesn't seem to be new."
People are missing the point, and unfortunately you're taking out important words, altering the meaning, in the admirable effort to strip the sentence. I'm not making the obviously ludicrous claim that "don't" should go with "one". Because it goes with "games"! It can ONLY go with games. Here's another rephrase of the wrong version: Chaotix is one, that doesn't include Sonic, of the few Sonic games. Once again... NOTHING is there to combat the absurd semantic meaning that there are only a few Sonic games. If only there were a way to make that meaning clearer. Oh, I know! There ARE only a few Sonic games that DON'T include Sonic himself, right? That's an important fact, stated with unimpeachable grammar! Well, we'll just put that into the original sentence: Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that don't include Sonic himself that doesn't include Sonic himself. That's perfectly grammatical but extremely redundant, because of course Chaotix's inclusion (one of the few) implies it has that characteristic itself. So we can leave "that doesn't..." out. And what are we left with?
Or let's create a different restriction. It's true that there are only a few late 90s Sonic games, right? Out of the entire corpus, anyway. Chaotix is one of those few Sonic games that come from the late 90s. In fact, Chaotix is one of the few Sonic games that COME from the late 90s that DOESn't include Sonic himself. But that's not an interesting fact, because the era is irrelevant. Still, it communicates the narrowing of Sonic games Chaotix might be one of to the few late 90s ones, along with the fact that Chaotix is one without Sonic.
And I'm not trusting a bot to have the final word, because it doesn't know that there are not only a few Sonic games, even if it can perfectly analyze the grammatical structure (can it?). But as an experiment, I gave it this sentence to rewrite: "Of the few Sonic games that don't feature Sonic himself, Chaotix is one." It suggests "Chaotix is one of the rare Sonic titles without Sonic the Hedgehog." I'd accept that as a valid sentence, but you know what, it does not resolve the question on its own, because it does not make it explicit whether "Sonic titles" or "Sonic titles without Sonic the Hedgehog" are what are considered rare. We know the answer, and in writing and speech we can hear it. It just so happens that both ideas can be expressed identically, with no grammatical inflections or other markers to distinguish them. (Funny, isn't it the language of Sonic's homeland that is well known for conversations with the rephrasing of one idea multiple ways to help reduce ambiguity?) When those different options exist, one should be careful to use the correct form for one's meaning, especially in writing as opposed to extemporaneous speech.
It will be bedtime soon, so I'll leave it here and maybe not be greeted with more inexplicable rationalizations of sloppy grammar tomorrow. One can dream.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
htwh wrote:
Maybe a humble lurker wouldn't need to make a forum account if this site gave any way to just drop a polite email for a minor correction or site-related feedback.
Buddy, you have been neither humble nor polite, and you have absolutely not been treating this as a "minor correction" given the increasing length and arrogance of your posting. Drop the attitude or you're gone.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
Samsara wrote:
htwh wrote:
Maybe a humble lurker wouldn't need to make a forum account if this site gave any way to just drop a polite email for a minor correction or site-related feedback.
Buddy, you have been neither humble nor polite, and you have absolutely not been treating this as a "minor correction" given the increasing length and arrogance of your posting. Drop the attitude or you're gone.
How have I been impolite? Honest question. I haven't been calling people names or using rude language, just trying to aid in understanding. As for humble, I feel as if I started that way, though the more I've had to write to combat misconceptions, the less humble and minor this has all felt. If I'd come in and pointed out a misplaced apostrophe (say a 's instead of s') and received testy and inaccurate responses of "actually 's is right", wouldn't it make sense to explain further?
Maybe I misjudged the atmosphere here, as in my many years of using this site, I have just been one of the many lurkers here*, though I've kept mostly to the front page and only browsed the forums a little. To barge in and make a scene, or stir up trouble, is not my intent. I didn't derail a busy thread, at least. (*Or, since lurkers=people who lurk, I've been one of the many people who lurk here, plural verb, since it would be pretty silly to say one of the many people, one who also lurks.)
One last example. If this doesn't help shed some light, I don't know what will.
1. There are a few Sonic games, of which Chaotix is one that doesn't feature Sonic himself.
2. There are a few Sonic games that don't feature Sonic himself, of which Chaotix is one.
Which of those both states truth and gives a helpful description? (And if we add a comma after "one" in 1, what happens?)
Nobody so far wrote:
Oh, I think I see what you mean now. Oops! I hadn't thought about it that way before. That makes sense, and it could add some precision to the language on this site devoted to precision. How unexpected but enlightening. I can use this to make my own writing more clear and precise, and help others as well!
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Joined: 3/21/2023
Posts: 11
Location: At water with horses I've led there but won't admit it's water
OtakuTAS wrote:
Zing? Grammarly's OK at some things, but usually not nuanced meaning in broader cases. Any guide will tell you that commas may and should be used to clarify meaning and prevent misreading, even when nothing else calls for them. This one prevents the "because" clause from being interpreted as a reason to trust the bot (such an interpretation won't make semantic sense in this example but it forces the reader to back up and try again), and instead indicates that it's a reason NOT to trust it.
Sometimes there's meaning to both versions. For example:
I don't trust you because you're wearing a fancy suit. (Some people may consider that reason enough to trust, but I don't. Trust-you-because... is one connected thought, and don't negates all of that.)
I don't trust you, because you're wearing a fancy suit. (I might have trusted you, but I've become wary of such tactics, and now this suit makes me suspicious. Because... is a reason for don't-trust-you.)
In speech, vocal inflection helps convey the sentiment. Capitalization, boldface, etc. may indicate stress instead, but the comma gets the job done. Of course, the first version could be taken the second way (one might insert "just" before "because" to avoid that), but the second version is clear.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Deleted
I'm not trying to suck anyone into an endless debate. Basic subject-verb agreement is important, but identifying the actual subject is too. Since you cited a specific resource - https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/sub-verb.htm (rule 1) - let me draw your attention to rule 10-A, whose extension to cover this topic seems obvious:
"With one of those ________ who, use a plural verb.
Hannah is one of those people who LIKE to read comic books.
The above example implies that others besides Hannah like to read comic books. Therefore, the plural verb is the correct form to use."
Implied by that explanation is the fact that like's subject is who=those people, not one. The others-besides argument is one way to think about it, but not the only one. Here it seems chosen to contrast with 10-B. Once you see the structure of such a sentence, though, it all makes sense, and you have a new feature of the language under your belt. Hannah is one of those (unspecified) people. Which people? Why, the ones who like comics. Chaotix is one of the (unspecified) few Sonic games. Which games? The ones without Sonic, plural.
Rules 5 and 9 are useful to review in general, by the way. They have nothing to do with this discussion, but they're frequently forgotten. Many people say "there's" with plural subjects, for example, and sentences like "the best part are the battles".
Written graciously and politely. I want to be charmy and not a mighty pain with this vector for knowledge. Thanks.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
htwh wrote:
How have I been impolite? Honest question. I haven't been calling people names or using rude language, just trying to aid in understanding.
Examples from just this post:
If I'd come in and pointed out a misplaced apostrophe (say a 's instead of s') and received testy and inaccurate responses of "actually 's is right", wouldn't it make sense to explain further?
(*Or, since lurkers=people who lurk, I've been one of the many people who lurk here, plural verb, since it would be pretty silly to say one of the many people, one who also lurks.)
If this doesn't help shed some light, I don't know what will.
"Oh, I think I see what you mean now. Oops! I hadn't thought about it that way before. That makes sense, and it could add some precision to the language on this site devoted to precision. How unexpected but enlightening. I can use this to make my own writing more clear and precise, and help others as well!"
There is an unnecessary tone of superiority in every post you've made past your original. This is not the tone of someone who is genuinely trying to help, in my opinion. It's a narcissistic tone, one that implies that we are but fools and idiots that need to be guided by a true expert. Any intent you have to "aid in understanding" is undercut by the fact that you are borderline insulting our intelligence at least once per paragraph.
This attitude is genuinely worrying to me because a lot of our community members, including and especially staff members, are not native English speakers, and that shows in the way they write and speak in English. It's not unreasonable to think that if you're so adamant about the correction of this single word, you may be adamant about correcting the words of these community members. At best, this would still be disruptive and unnecessary behavior. At worst, it can be seen as racist harassment. To be clear, I doubt that would ever be your intent or anyone else's intent, but it's still a potential problem that I have to consider as a community leader here... Though, that being said, I'm extremely unhappy with the way you tried to drag DrD2k9 back into the argument after he openly removed his post and backed out, so I'm not convinced that you won't cause problems with individual users.
As for humble, I feel as if I started that way, though the more I've had to write to combat misconceptions, the less humble and minor this has all felt.
You started off okay, and I'm even taking you at your word that your original intent was to help. The problem is that this did not escalate because of anyone who responded to you, this escalated because of the way you have been responding to them in turn. Granted, I am not quite happy with the responses to you either, but even then I don't think they contributed to the escalation in any way other than giving you something to respond to.
Maybe I misjudged the atmosphere here, as in my many years of using this site, I have just been one of the many lurkers here*, though I've kept mostly to the front page and only browsed the forums a little. To barge in and make a scene, or stir up trouble, is not my intent. I didn't derail a busy thread, at least.
I would say the atmosphere here is "a niche video game emulation and speedrunning community" and not "a place where people are desperate for English tutoring". Sure, your intent was not to make a scene, nor was it to derail site or staff activity, but it still happened, and it'll continue to happen if it isn't stopped outright. Staff members are volunteers, and discussions like these waste the spare time we have to dedicate to the site.
For accountability reasons, I'd like to be as clear as possible about what's happening. We are taking action against your account solely because of your disruptive attitude. This has nothing to do with the topic of the argument itself. The action taken is going to be a one month temporary ban, and the rest of the moderation team is in agreement with this. Feel free to go back to lurking full time, or feel free to come back on April 22nd and rejoin the community on a better note.
All this being said, we do absolutely need to publicize alternate forms of contact, as we have quite recently had an issue where a lack of said resource led to a situation escalating further than it should have. Thank you for bringing this up and reminding us that it is a problem. We're currently discussing this internally and it should be resolved in the near future.
Moving this whole debacle to threaded grue. To everyone: Please do not attempt to revive this discussion.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
