Goblet of Fire Teaser

[heidi]

The poster, as debuting on TLC tonight - well, it's lovely, and basically spoiler-free but wah - the grammar!

Comments

[zorb]

*inserts comma, period.*

[zorb]

*also, plots to run around "fixing" posters* :>

[slashkilter.livejournal.com]

They managed to get something mixed up and hired Yoda?

At least it looks really great.

[megaloo13.livejournal.com]

"Fourth Triwizard Champion, you are."

Nah, even Yoda uses commas. ;)

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

*sings* Comma, comma, comma, comma, comma chameleon..."

Why can't people remember to use a comma at the end of a statement or question addressed to a particular person???!?!?!111?? *sigh*

[/SPAG-nazi mode]

Otherwise, it's a nice poster.

[likebunnies.livejournal.com]

Perhaps they got someone from ff.net to write the one line. Those people don't like commas, either.

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

No but they LOVE CAPTIAL LETERS AND MISPELLNG AND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!11`1```!!11!!

[prettyveela.livejournal.com]

aldjfkal;sdkfja;lskdjf;alskjfda;jfd! Thanks for posting it!

Are his robes torn or is that just me?

[cloudlessnights.livejournal.com]

Spoiler-free and comma-free?

[ladyblack888.livejournal.com]

*snorts*

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

There's nothing grammatically wrong with that, not counting the missing period (which isn't necessarily used on movie poster taglines anyway). Who says the person they're quoting is talking TO Harry? Why can't they be talking ABOUT Harry? Difficult times lie ahead Harry.

The speaker/person quoted isn't talking TO Harry...WB's too smart to mess something up THAT badly when it comes to such a huge movie. The speaker is talking ABOUT Harry.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I can't see how "Difficult times lie ahead Harry" could ever be correct. I keep running your argument through my head and it does not sound right. If there was an "of" or a "for" then having the sentence be about Harry would be viable, but as it is, I just can't see/hear how it can be right, as is.

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it would sound a lot better if there was a "for" thrown in there, but I'm just about 100% positive that it's still grammatically correct without the "for". Either way, it's pretty clear that the quote's talking ABOUT Harry rather than TO him, at least in my opinion. It insinuates a much more literal meaning without the "for", but when you think about it pertaining to time, it makes sense that way.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

What is grammatically "correct" for you is all your own, but it's certainly the case that such a construction is not standard English. It's been a very long time since I've done real syntax, but I think the problem is that "ahead" is not a proposition that normally assigns case - maybe it does for you? So can you say things like "ahead me there is a dog", then?

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

Was that meant to be snarky? Because that came off as ungodly snarky and flat-out rude.

With that being said, I said in my post before that it sounds a lot better and a lot more correct with "for" than it does like that, but I do not think that it's the worst grammar mistake in the world. I definitely don't think the speaker is talking to Harry--rather I'm certain the speaker is talking ABOUT Harry, once again. It's much more feasible that the WB would make that sort of error rather than such a glaring one as missing that comma. The people at the WB aren't idiots. It's entirely possible that sort of "grammar" is acceptable in Hollywood for movie posters, where promoters don't expect to be analyzed so closely by the average poster-viewer/general public. It might also be a size thing, where "Difficult times lie ahead for Harry" simply didn't fit the width of the poster and it wasn't anesthetically-pleasing for there to be two lines.

As long as the lack of proper grammar in a Harry Potter teaser poster doesn't affect the way you live your day-to-day life, there's no reason to be rude about it. If it DOES affect you in profound ways, then I apologize for adding to the burden.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

I had to look at twice as well... :) Now, if they had said.

"What is grammatically "correct" for YOU is all YOUR own..." it would have been different. I took it to mean a generic 'you' as in everyone, but even so I still have learned my lesson about getting too upset with what people write on their LJ. It's pretty much IM... :) and sometimes can be a bit garbled to what people truly mean. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. :)

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, am not upset, just a little taken aback, that's all. :o) That's why I asked instead of getting all freaked out about it.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

o.O Huh. No, it wasn't meant to be snarky at all - it was a real question. There's a lot of variation in spoken English and what is fine for one speaker is just terribly wrong to another. For example, for me, "might could" is grammatical, e.g. "We might could go to the movies together." For others that's a train wreck. I was trying to figure out why it was all right for you when it was so, so wrong for me, and if the sentence I asked you about was fine, that would explain why - because for you, "ahead" is perfectly happy having a noun after it.

And I really am not terribly worried about proper grammar except in my students' papers (and occasionally in fic). I am much more interested in variation, however, and I am intrigued that you can get a grammatical reading for this sentence in which Harry is not the addressee. It's interesting.

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

Okay, just making sure--as long as you didn't mean for it to be snarky or anything, 'tis cool.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, when it comes to using prepositions...I can see how it could be acceptable to some to use "Difficult Times Are Ahead Harry" and have it be grammatically correct. I personally would never say that--I'd have a "for" in there, possibly an "of", but I know people who speak that way and are very intelligent. Yeah, "ahead" having a noun after it isn't terribly offensive for me personally, but I can see how it could be to some. If I were a graphics artist and had to find a way to shorten that sentence (in its full grammatically-correct fashion), I'd take out "of/for". It's marginal, but I do think it works. I think it's better in the written form than the spoken form--I'd do a double-take if someone said that to me, but not necessarily while reading it.

The "might could" thing I've never heard of before. Where are you from?

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

I think it's better in the written form than the spoken form--I'd do a double-take if someone said that to me, but not necessarily while reading it.

That is the weirdest grammaticality attestation I've ever seen, and that is really saying something. :)) I have absolutely no idea what to make of that. So the sentence I asked about before, the one that begins with "ahead me", is that in that same "marginal but all right" camp, too, then? I'm going to be listening for that for weeks.

And I'm Texas born and bred. The "might could" is called a stacked modal, and they show up in pockets throughout the southern US. They also occur in other varieties of English, most notably (and frequently) in some dialects of Scottish English. Speech communities can do some crazy things.

And Heidi, I swear I'll stop turning your journal into a cheap data mine as soon as we're done here. :D

[lanamariah.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, no, the sentence you gave as an example definitely sounds wrong and grammatically incorrect to me. Ending a sentence with that sort of thing is the only acceptable form, as far as not doing a double-take goes for me.

Hmm, yeah, I've never heard of the stacked modal in a language outside of German (and even then that sort of thing occurs at the end of a sentence--crazy Germans). I didn't know it was done in English. That's really cool, in a same-country different-speech-pattern sort of way. :o)

I'm from Detroit, born and bred as well (Canadian accent and all). So perhaps that attributes significantly to this "debate", different regions and all. *grin*

[ceilidh]

Yeah. And I would think that if I was writing one sentence on a poster for a hugely-anticipated movie, I'd try my best to get it right. Sentence in an LJ = minor. Sentence on a Big Movie Poster = fairly big deal.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

Oh, right - this was originally about the poster, wasn't it? *headdesks* Well, you'd certainly want to use language that was available to the largest possible body of speakers, wouldn't you? Because I pay attention to speakers doing interesting things, and this is one I haven't heard before.

For the record, I'm fairly sure he was meant to be the addressee here and that somebody somewhere is terribly afraid of scary punctuation, but this is all really cool.

[ceilidh]

this is one I haven't heard before.

Me too and I hear some scary English sometimes! :))

[zorb]

The fact that it's in quotes seals it as a direct address, as opposed to a general statement about the film. IMHO, anyway.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Would it be more like a 'JKR dialogue' type of comment? Similar to what people (Ron) :) would actually say rather than a complete sentence? It might have been better to write it as a complete sentence, but I think the intent was an everyday type of speech rather than accurate grammar.

The Comma Stands Alone

[msbhaven.livejournal.com]

Look no one ever said you needed the bestest grammar when you're a designer.

Re: The Comma Stands Alone

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

So is it a "we don't need no stinkin' commas, we have teh prettee!" situation?

Re: The Comma Stands Alone

[msbhaven.livejournal.com]

Eh for some folks yes. For me a little.

I feel really bad for the comma that didn't get picked. Dodgeball all over again.

Re: The Comma Stands Alone

[dharmavati.livejournal.com]

Of course! Especially when "teh prettee" refers to mesh clothing in Gryffindor colors from Nike...

[siriuslyfun731.livejournal.com]

You would think (or I would, atleast) that whoever designed that poster would have decent grammar skills. I mean, it's a Harry Potter poster we're talking about--you've got to be pretty special to be chosen for something like that.

[gorgeousnerd]

That was my first thought when I saw the poster. I'm really glad I'm not the only one. I can't even look at it without wincing.

[siriuslyfun731.livejournal.com]

Same thing with me. I have this horrible thing against bad grammar. I'm afraid it's thrown me off my normal course of using netspeak, like all the other thirteen year olds.

[isilya]

Thanks for the link!

[siriuslyfun731.livejournal.com]

Now we know that there really is a grammar mistake on the poster. If you've seen the new trailer, you'll understand what I mean by this.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

Yep, I get it now.

: shudders