Parkland Walk

rainbow_carnage

In a rare bout of motivation (read: guilt), I decided to go for a run down Parkland Walk.

What the hell happened to it?

It's been a while. I remember them widening it and filling some of the larger holes with that horrible sand that looks like diarrhea when it rains. But now they've paved segments of it with small stones. It's like running on... well, on pavement. Which, for me, completely negates the point of running on an off-road surface.

When did they do this? Did I miss the memo? I'm sure it's great for cyclists, but it's murder on a runner's joints.

And I just bought new off-road running shoes!

kerry

the stone patches are annoying me as well. they seem be laying them in segments before covering them up with clay - which at least makes for easier footing.

this work has been going on for ages. does anyone know what they are actually doing?

Philistine'sMonster

Ahem … A quick look on the Friends of Parkland Walk website tells us:

“The railway once had a functioning drainage system, but it is now not working and some places in cuttings have suffered badly. The worst section is between Crouch Hill and Stanhope Road, but there are other wet areas where the land has dipped. There has been strong resistance to a sealed (tarmac) surface and hoggin is the preferred material as it is rustic and natural. (See top picture).”

“…When a poor source of hoggin is used it does not ‘lock up’ well and can be slimey. Other materials such as crushed limestone or recycled concrete have been suggested…”

“There are worries about the Walk becoming too urbanised. In 2008 a programme of drainage and rustic resurfacing was undertaken and further work to deal with places that did not come up to expectations was carried out in March 2009.”

Well you learn something new every day.

And an even quicker Google for Hoggin (there are only 3 entries) tells us:

“Hoggin is the term given to a mixture of clays, sands and gravels to form a material that compacts well and provides a usable, stable surface at low cost. There is some variation in colour but it is predominantly "buff".”

Well buff, indeed. Phwoaaaar! Look at the gravel on that. Larverly.

I had a walk down there at the weekend and where the Hoggin is newly laid it's slimy underfoot. The stuff they put down a few days earlier seems to be a lot easier to walk on.

I’ve just realised I’ve wasted 10 minutes of my life researching and discussing road surfaces. It’s like a shit version of QI.

Jesus’s tits.

tosscat

Do you mean "Jesus' tits"?

David

Works both ways, it could be a rather derogatory term for his disciples or indeed his holy nipples. Is that even right, does it make any difference? Not very good at S/apostrophe ending with S. My other problem is full stops on sentences ending with a closing bracket - which side does the full stop go?

ShaunG

outside (like this).

Philistine'sMonster

Normally Tosscat, yes. But I was feeling reckless and I had an extra s at my disposal. But yeah, it works both ways -- hey, what are you going to do about it, hmmm?

Don't you love people wot correct grammar on forums?

David

Ok but what about two sentences in the brackets (So a bit like this. This sentence isn't punctuated).

poxy

And just as importantly, where does the missing question mark go?

David

crazy English language.

Philistine'sMonster

Crazy English. I believe it’s the words that make it confusing. There must be a better way of expressing ourselves.

Regarding brackets: frankly I don’t give a toss, but some people do. And if you use them incorrectly they’ll call the police. As I understand it (and I’m no expert) good style would suggest that a bracketed passage with more than one sentence is almost certainly too long. But rules are there to be broken, like starting a sentence with a conjunction. Heeeey, just like I did there!

(A standalone sentence has the full stop inside the bracket.) Like this, see?

When it forms part of a sentence, it comes at the end (like wot I’m doing here). See?

So when a bracketed bit contains more than one sentence I suppose, technically, it should follow the rule that the full stop is inside the bracket. And it should standalone.

If you’re writing something like your example...

<i>Ok but what about two sentences in the brackets (So a bit like this. This sentence isn't punctuated).</i>

...then I believe grammarians would say you shouldn’t.

But who are they to tell us?!!!!!! (and just to annoy them I’ve used my daily quota of exclamation marks in one go, which is against THE LAW.)

Shit, actually, this is confusing.

If I were you (and I hope I’m not because then I’m going to be even more confused) I’d change the structure of the sentence or find an alternate way of expressing yourself. Like through art or violence or even Maurice dancing*.

If you do insist on structuring your sentences like this, however, I’d submit an application to the relevant department and get permission first; otherwise, you’re entering a whole world of pain, my son.

*Yes, Maurice.

charis

I heart Phil's post.

Needed to be said.

Philistine'sMonster

Thank you Charis. And I *heart* you too. Charis. Interesting name. A man from Karnataka sold me some “charis” in India once. His name was Chandra. He told me it meant “the moon”, and then I forgot who I was.

charis

Yep, unsurprisingly I get that a fair amount. Again, unsurprisingly, less now I no longer work in Camden.

In regards to your grammar comment, I can't help it- I'm a good grammar hussy.

David

Now I'm wondering why you'd ever have a standalone bracketed sentence. Wouldn't it just be a sentence?

Philistine'sMonster

No. Not if it's a change of narrative focus.

I think.

<i> The discussion on brackets was started by David. (Someone else published an article on quotation marks.) The discussion marked, blah-blah-blah... </i>

That's not a great example, but I'm not quick-witted enough to conjure another. Someone cleverer than me will be able to clarify this.

charis

I thought the full stop was inside the bracket on a stand alone sentence? Oh, now I'm very confused.

Philistine'sMonster

It is. I cocked it up. So I've changed it. You're right. I'm just a bad typist.

Philistine'sMonster

If in doubt Google… Look there’s some stuff on the internet!

http://www.edufind.com/english/punctuation/BRACKETS.cfm

Except the last example is wrong (full stop inside the bracket)! So that’s no help to any of us. Fools!

And according to them they’re called parenthesis anyway [the square ones are brackets]. Oooh, lah-de-dah!

This one seems to be reliable:

http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/fullstops.htm

And it has examples of a standalone, David. Hurrah!

To save you scrolling down it says,

<i> The stop is normally placed inside quotation marks but outside a parenthesis:

"What joy we had that particular day."
Profits declined (despite increased sales).

If the parenthesis is a complete sentence, the full stop stays inside the brackets:

There was an earthquake in Osaka. (Another had occurred in Tokyo the year previously.) </i>

But to be super sure, I’d buy a book. Or just avoid brackets altogether because they’re bastards.

Edit: tried to make the links clickkable but they vanished.

rainbow_carnage

Does no one else sleep with a copy of Strunk and White under the pillow?

Philistine'sMonster

Nah. We're English. Fowlers.

tosscat

Phil, did you mean the tits of the Jesuses? Is it 'Jesuses' or 'Jesii'? I like to think that as it's sometime 'Jesu' then maybe it is 'Jesii', like 'denaro' and 'denarii'.

Philistine'sMonster

Dunno, sir. You're probably right.

Actually I must own up. I was referring to a waiter from Lisbon. He worked at the <i> I' m pesaroso mas eu sneezed em sua sopa </i> bistro. He had a languid air about him, never got on well with customers and often lost his temper. It became a matter of contention among the other waiters that Jesus (for that was his name) was never rewarded (on account of his indolence and irascibility) for his services, yet would happily (at the end of the evening’s services) take a share of the collective kitty. The other waiters would slap their heads and shout, <i>“Le pourboire de Jesus!” </i> (for they were French but never learned the grammar), as yet again Jesus (despite never contributing a cent) took a percentage of their well-deserved money. And it became known among the cooperative as an expression of exasperation: “Jesus’s tips!” or “Jesus’ tips!” they would cry (but as I say, they never learned the grammar in their own language, so how could we expect them to understand ours?).

So, Tosscat, wot I meant to say was “Jesus’ tips!”

I’m sorry for the confusion this has caused and for turning this otherwise interesting thread about Parkland Walk surfacing textures into a riveting and thrill-by-the-minute discussion on parenthesis.

Edit: The brackets in the above are there (like this explanation of them) merely to annoy. Apologies, however, for the terrible story and the atrocious French.

The Portuguese I can live with.

graeme

Went to some town council meetings about this about 2 years ago, up at the primary school on Cround End Hill. Got a bit heated.

Most vocal people felt that the council doing any works on the walk would be the thin end of the wedge of TFL (I think) trying to turn it into a real cycle path as part of their Capital Ring plans. The point of it being a "parkland" walk (ie it's a little bit country) seemed lost on them.

Points were also raised that it was inaccessible to wheelchairs and to mothers with prams, so some of the access steps would be replaced with ramps. Not sure that happened.

Seems the council came down on the 'fix the drainage/leave the rest of it alone' side, but can understand that once you start making areas of it semi-permanent then it's a short step just to tarmac the whole thing, which was a concern. Worth keeping an eye on the FOTPW website.

[ps most entertaining exchange was from a rather well-to-do Thatcher-like septugenarian, who even wanted dog walkers banned. She appeared to nearly physically boak as she said the words 'I'm tired of stepping in their sh1t!'. No one expected that]