HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   News Article: Torts interview with Brooks 10/24/12 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1275281)

Baby Punisher 10-24-2012 07:32 PM

Torts interview with Brooks 10/24/12
 
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...WXCjEffrFX6CGL

Brooklyn Ranger 10-24-2012 10:07 PM

The only real news in the article is this,

Quote:

Tortorella, who is scouting the AHL Whale (“None of the kids is really playing well”),
(emphasis added)

The rest is par for the situation.

Kreider Typical 10-24-2012 11:08 PM

is that supposed to imply context? it doesn't look like it and that could be really important. for all we know he said, "none of the kids are playing well, BUT that's because they're not playing right now" i'm not going to jump to a conclusion on it. i think it's an accurate statement, but jean has been better than i expected and kreider is acceptable... and honestly they're playing well at ahl level. maybe not well for the big leagues, but a few guys have been acceptable.


ALSO... "none of the kids is"... is improper english.

Brooklyn Ranger 10-24-2012 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooskating (Post 55263799)
is that supposed to imply context? it doesn't look like it and that could be really important. for all we know he said, "none of the kids are playing well, BUT that's because they're not playing right now" i'm not going to jump to a conclusion on it. i think it's an accurate statement, but jean has been better than i expected and kreider is acceptable... and honestly they're playing well at ahl level. maybe not well for the big leagues, but a few guys have been acceptable.


ALSO... "none of the kids is"... is improper english.

Didn't realize Torts had been a English major in college (did he even go to college?). And while we could certainly argue over what he meant, I'm assuming Brooks got the gist of what he was saying right. Especially given the warm, incredible friendship they've built over the years.

What I got from that little sippet is that none of the kids (doubt he was talking about Kreider) are ready to play in the NHL if the season started in the near future.

wolfgaze 10-25-2012 02:03 AM

Miss you Torts!

nycbruins* 10-25-2012 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mooskating (Post 55263799)
is that supposed to imply context? it doesn't look like it and that could be really important. for all we know he said, "none of the kids are playing well, BUT that's because they're not playing right now" i'm not going to jump to a conclusion on it. i think it's an accurate statement, but jean has been better than i expected and kreider is acceptable... and honestly they're playing well at ahl level. maybe not well for the big leagues, but a few guys have been acceptable.


ALSO... "none of the kids is"... is improper english.

Wrong. None is singular, so "is" is grammatically correct. Points for Torts for getting something right that everybody gets wrong.

Kreider Typical 10-25-2012 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbruins (Post 55266803)
Wrong. None is singular, so "is" is grammatically correct. Points for Torts for getting something right that everybody gets wrong.

touche

emodwarf 10-25-2012 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbruins (Post 55266803)
Wrong. None is singular, so "is" is grammatically correct. Points for Torts for getting something right that everybody gets wrong.

Actually, none isn't universally singular, and is often plural. In this instance "none" could be singular or plural. If you parse his meaning as "[Not one] of the kids is..." then it's singular. But none can also mean "[Not any] of the kids are..." - which would be plural.

Anyway, hoping that once I get a car soon I'll be able to make it down to some Whale games myself. Hopefully by then Torts' assessment will have improved :)

nyr2k2 10-25-2012 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbruins (Post 55266803)
Wrong. None is singular, so "is" is grammatically correct. Points for Torts for getting something right that everybody gets wrong.

"None" can be singular or plural. Is the sense of the noun singular or plural? That's what should determine whether none is singular or plural. In this instance, either could be correct, though I would argue "are" is the more natural-sounding. (EDIT: Beaten to it a few posts above. :))

On topic, the kids haven't been particularly good prior to last night's effort. Jean has stood out, but who else?

BroadwayBlues 10-25-2012 08:59 AM

I thought the comments were about the article. Instead it's about proper English. :shakehead

*leaves thread*

Jaromir Jagr 10-25-2012 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues (Post 55268613)
I thought the comments were about the article. Instead it's about proper English. :shakehead

*leaves thread*

Not for nothing, you would expect an article written for the Post and written by stupid Brooks to be correct. It's not like this was a forum statement.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 10-25-2012 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwayBlues (Post 55268613)
I thought the comments were about the article. Instead it's about proper English. :shakehead

*leaves thread*

Not sure what there really is to comment about in the article. Torts has concerns. Other than the comment about the kids in Hartford, there's little to comment on because any thought of playing this season seems to be nothing more than wishing at this point.

1994sec311 10-25-2012 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbruins (Post 55266803)
Wrong. None is singular, so "is" is grammatically correct. Points for Torts for getting something right that everybody gets wrong.

Yes, my love for Torts only grew deeper that he got this right. Everyone else in the world seems to get it wrong.

Fitzy 10-25-2012 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger (Post 55264557)
Didn't realize Torts had been a English major in college (did he even go to college?). And while we could certainly argue over what he meant, I'm assuming Brooks got the gist of what he was saying right. Especially given the warm, incredible friendship they've built over the years.

What I got from that little sippet is that none of the kids (doubt he was talking about Kreider) are ready to play in the NHL if the season started in the near future.

Uh... yes.

Both John and his brother were mainstays at the University of Maine hockey team.

Kane One 10-25-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis (Post 55274335)
Uh... yes.

Both John and his brother were mainstays at the University of Maine hockey team.

Jim Tortorella looks exactly like John.

http://www.unhwildcats.com/sports/mi...max_height=200

And I believe it's "kids are," since "kids" is plural.

wolfgaze 10-25-2012 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaneone (Post 55276015)
Jim Tortorella looks exactly like John.

http://www.unhwildcats.com/sports/mi...max_height=200

And I believe it's "kids are," since "kids" is plural.

'kids' is not the subject of the sentence, it's 'none'. So what matters is whether the interpretation of 'none' is 'not one' (singular) or 'not any' (plural). It appears it can go either way.

This is how you need we need some ********ng hockey back on! We've resorted to discussing semantics/grammer in depth! :laugh:

Kane One 10-25-2012 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfgaze (Post 55277895)
'kids' is not the subject of the sentence, it's 'none'. So what matters is whether the interpretation of 'none' is 'not one' (singular) or 'not any' (plural). It appears it can go either way.

This is how you need we need some ********ng hockey back on! We've resorted to discussing semantics/grammer in depth! :laugh:

Hmm.. I still disagree. :laugh:

Are there any English teachers here to settle this!?

Callagraves 10-25-2012 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfgaze (Post 55277895)
'kids' is not the subject of the sentence, it's 'none'. So what matters is whether the interpretation of 'none' is 'not one' (singular) or 'not any' (plural). It appears it can go either way.

This is how you need we need some ********ng hockey back on! We've resorted to discussing semantics/grammer in depth! :laugh:


Grammar rules say it can be either, but it should be "are" for syntax and stylistic reasons.

nycbruins* 10-25-2012 06:45 PM

More of the english language getting watered down so people don't feel stupid. Yeah, for purposes of syntax, "not any" just rolls off the tongue (sarcasm). There's pretty much no way to be gramatically wrong anymore because they just change the rules to accomodate all the dumbasses that speak it.

Good for Torts. He didn't want to say "not any of the kids are playng well" because that sounds stupid. So he said what he wanted to say the right way. Another reason i like him.

New York RKY 10-25-2012 06:48 PM

We're not here to dissect the English language and what's proper grammatically. Focus on the article.

Brian Boyle 10-25-2012 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antithesis (Post 55274335)
Uh... yes.

Both John and his brother were mainstays at the University of Maine hockey team.

Like Van Wilder mainstays?

Edge 10-26-2012 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nycbruins (Post 55282947)
More of the english language getting watered down so people don't feel stupid. Yeah, for purposes of syntax, "not any" just rolls off the tongue (sarcasm). There's pretty much no way to be gramatically wrong anymore because they just change the rules to accomodate all the dumbasses that speak it.

You mean a language that actually changes with time? The heck thou sayeth.

Per chance thou hath miss'd the point? Me thinks English dost evolve in time.

Tis only a fool's errand to assumes other wise.

Bottom line, it happens. If it didn't, you'd be using a different keyboard with letters that no longer exist in our already "watered down" language.

Mr Atoz* 10-27-2012 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfgaze (Post 55277895)
'kids' is not the subject of the sentence, it's 'none'. So what matters is whether the interpretation of 'none' is 'not one' (singular) or 'not any' (plural). It appears it can go either way.

This is how you need we need some ********ng hockey back on! We've resorted to discussing semantics/grammer in depth! :laugh:

I disagree because none is modifying kids which is plural. 'Kids' is the subject. Notice that in "Kids is the subject" you use "is" with "kids" because in that context, "kids" is singular because it is one word. "None of the kids" is the subject in Torts' sentence and that is plural because there is more than one kid.

smoneil 10-27-2012 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaneone (Post 55282557)
Hmm.. I still disagree. :laugh:

Are there any English teachers here to settle this!?

Former English teacher. Current English doctoral candidate.

Because "None" is ambiguous as to whether it is singular or plural (it can be either one), the general rule is to base your verb choice on the number of the object of the preposition--in this case "kids."

That said, Torts was speaking--not writing an essay. Grammar is for written communication. Vocal communication is governed not by rules of grammar but by issues of linguistics, which can change from location to location. So technically, the construction of the sentence was "wrong," but ultimately it doesn't matter, because nobody speaks in perfect formal English.

And just to bring it back to the article, I wonder which kids he's particularly unhappy with.

Kreider Typical 10-27-2012 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoneil (Post 55322693)
Former English teacher. Current English doctoral candidate.

Because "None" is ambiguous as to whether it is singular or plural (it can be either one), the general rule is to base your verb choice on the number of the object of the preposition--in this case "kids."

That said, Torts was speaking--not writing an essay. Grammar is for written communication. Vocal communication is governed not by rules of grammar but by issues of linguistics, which can change from location to location. So technically, the construction of the sentence was "wrong," but ultimately it doesn't matter, because nobody speaks in perfect formal English.

And just to bring it back to the article, I wonder which kids he's particularly unhappy with.

wording makes it sound like all of them... which is pretty surprising since i thought kreider, and jean have been good and miller's been fine. maybe torts is just comparing to nhl level... expecting guys to carry the team on their backs down there???


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.