@Draug, For the most part I was joking, but J did develop as an alternate to I when used as a consonant (Iulius Caesar, Iuppiter, etc.).

@Maniac, Draug pretty much says it all. I'll excuse your misunderstanding of my statement as a result of your not understanding how verbs work. I'm saying that we assumed you were using them as verbs as in the common saying (I suggest you look up a definition of "idiom" as well). Oddly, use of an indefinite article would have been very helpful for adding clarity.

So draug and ghug did the verb to dot and to cross become nouns?

Yes, we did the verb. ;)

Despite the atrocious English, I've figured out what you were trying to say. You used them as verbal nouns, yes.

dot and cross are both nouns and verbs. It really is simple. Don't forget to dot your i and cross your tee. Verb. The dot above the i and the cross atop the tee. Those are nouns. Likewise throw is both verb and noun. Throw the ball. Verb. The throw to home was over the catcher's head. Noun. So you cannot apply possession to a verb. If you think you can, I suggest you ask an English professor.

"The young girl's throw is weak."

In the above, throw is a noun. The verb is "is".

Exactly Alderian. Eliminate "young girl's" and you get "The throw is weak." a valid sentence that proves throw is a noun.

Actually ulytau, all the examples you gave are of the *definite* article being ommitted. "Deck must contain 20 cards" would mean, "THE deck must contain 20 cards." Similarly, "Grasp drumstick. Place knife between thigh and body; cut through skin to joint. Separate thigh and drumstick at joint." The drumstick is *the* drumstick. The knife is *the* knife. It's the definite article that can be ommitted in times like these, not the indefinite. If you leave out the indefinite when there is more than one of something, you will create ambiguity.

Actually, A Deck must contain 20 cards is perfectly valid when multiple decks may be built.

Yes, Draug. But "Deck must contain 20 cards" is not. It implies it's referring to a singular deck.

I quote wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-marking_in_English

"The zero article is also used in instructions and manuals. In such cases, the references in the text are all definite, and thus no distinction between definite and indefinite has to be made.

Grasp drumstick. Place knife between thigh and body; cut through skin to joint. Separate thigh and drumstick at joint."

You are viewing it out of context. For instance:

Playing fizziwig CCG involves building decks of collectible cards and playing with those decks against your opponents who will have built similar decks. A deck must contain at least 20 cards. More may be added but a full board layout requires 20 cards to play the game.

Draug,

I'm really not sure what you're discussing. I agree that one can put an indefinite article. At issue is what omitting it would mean. In the paragraph you quoted, it would be incorrect to omit the article.

This could then be layed out in a bullted list.

Fizziwig CCG decks follow the following rules:
- Deck must contain at least 20 cards
- Deck may never be larger than 30 cards
- Total value of a deck must be no more than 120 .

Sorry, I was still typing.

OK, I agree that would be fine. However, the article would still be implied definite. And it would be slightly more correct if the opening sentence said "A Fizziwig CCG deck must follow the following rules:" instead of using the plural. Then, the definite is referring back to the indiivdual deck that was picked out by "a."

(In other words, if you used the plural in the opening, then you should actually just use the plural in each of those: "Decks must contain at least 20 cards," etc. Using the un-articled singular, which implies "the," implies that a particular one has been chosen out, such as by an "a.").

Wow, I was just saying that an educated person should know the "me" vs "i" rule. You guys went off on a tagent to be proud of ...

Of which to be proud!

You could have left "that" out as well. "I was just saying an educated person...". "That" is often an unnecessary word.

Only informally.

This is an informal forum. His post was an informal post. Ergo, he could have left "that" out of the sentence.

Well, true.

But you're not mandated to use rule relaxations in informal writing. I mean, you could've written "could've" instead of "could have." I think I miss your overall point.

Which is fine, and quite possibly my fault / ignorance of greater context.

I think the unnecessary elipsis overrules the ending the sentence proposition with ...

But then it should have been a four-point ellipsis.

It was a joke playing on his discovery of our fun little grammar debate. Obvious failed joke is epic failed joke...

Oh.

Gotcha.

@pholcore: "@Meepmeep, as a software engineer for 20 years . . . "
That would knock me down stone dead.

@timur, I don't follow, what do you mean? Do you mean being a software engineer for 20 years would knock you stone dead?

Draug is to "epic" as blank flag is to "elite"