Seven years experience

Question

Hi!Editing a friend's cover letter the other day, I came across the phrase "My seven years experience...". After consulting a language reference I told him that it is incorrect and should either be "seven years' experience" or "seven-year experience" (am I right?). My friend, however, decided not to correct the phrase, arguing that most people wouldn't consider this an error(with the human resources person likely to read his letter definitely falling under the "most people" heading). In fact, some people, not understanding the purpose of the hyphen and apostrophe, might be put off by their use, and regard it as at least strange, if not altogether mistaken. So, assuming I was right about the grammar, here was a case of someone purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated. Any comments from the wise people?Mike

Usenet · Accepted Answer

(snip)
here was a case of someone
[nq:1]purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated.[/nq]
(snip)
Diction is a dangerous thing. It has always been risky to appear "too educated" in this country. Consider the last presidential election, in which the unfortuantely well-spoken candidate had to try to prove he wasn't Icabod Crane, while the candidate won whose misuse of words would have had him laughed off the podium anywhere else in the world.

Franklin

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Hi! Editing a friend's cover letter the other day, I came across the phrase "My seven years experience...". After consulting ... a case of someone purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated. Any comments from the wise people?[/nq]
I think this is a borderline case. I'd use an apostrophe here, whether or not most people would consider it an error, but I think there is some justification possible for omitting the apostrophe.

"My twins experience" and "my twins' experience" have different meanings: "my experience of twins" and "the experience of my twins", respectively. If your friend tells me that "my seven years experience" means "my experience of seven years", I'm not going to disagree with him.

Adrian

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Editing a friend's cover letter the other day, I came across the phrase "My seven years experience...". After consulting a language reference I told him that it is incorrect and should either be "seven years' experience" or "seven-year experience" (am I right?).[/nq]
Yes, but you apparently overlooked an even easier fix: "my seven years of experience", which is much the more natural form anyway.
[nq:1]My friend, however, decided not to correct the phrase, arguing that most people wouldn't consider this an error(with the human ... a case of someone purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated. Any comments from the wise people?[/nq]
Your summation "purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated" does not comport with your observation that "some people, not understanding the purpose of the hyphen (or) apostrophe, might be put off by their use, and regard it as at least strange, if not altogether mistaken."
Did he leave it wrong because he feared that the right would be mistaken for a more bizarre wrong, or because he didn't want to look too educated? It sounds like the first is the case.

Either way, though, the simple "years of experience" rewrite would have righted the ship painlessly. (mixed-metaphor alert)

Cordially,
Eric Walker
My opinions on English are available at
http://owlcroft.com/english/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Diction is a dangerous thing. It has always been risky to appear "too educated" in this country. Consider the last ... the candidate won whose misuse of words would have had him laughed off the podium anywhere else in the world.[/nq]
You shouldn't make the mistake of underestimating him. I quote:

In the past, many of his detractors have dismissed him as a "lightweight." A chump. A joke. Many of them still do. And it's easy to see where they got this impression. Whenever he gives a speech, he invariably comes off sounding like some kind of ignoramus, who experiences difficulty wrapping his lips around the words that scroll across the Teleprompter. And when he has to work off-the-cuff, his folksy demeanor makes him seem more like the store manager of a Radio Shack than the President of the United States.

But George W. Bush is fully aware of how his enemies perceive him, and this is precisely how he wants them to react.. These affectations continue to be astonishingly effective; his act still manages to fool even his political opponents, who really ought to know better.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](snip) here was a case of someone[/nq]
[nq:2]purposely making a mistake for fear of appearing too educated.[/nq]
[nq:1](snip) Diction is a dangerous thing. It has always been risky to appear "too educated" in this country. Consider the ... the candidate won whose misuse of words would have had him laughed off the podium anywhere else in the world.[/nq]
I've read that Bush did better at university than Gore, but I didn't make note of the source except that it must have been in the UK Times or Independent, the only two newspapers that I read. Many of the brightest people I met in the oil exploration business, where the algorithms for noise reduction on the cross-sections produced from seismic shots meant the difference between success and a dry well, came from Texas and talked with funny accents.
I think it's about time that the snide quips about Bush's intelligence were laid to rest. He has more capability in his little finger than his predecessor had in his whole body, charisma and high intelligence notwithstanding. Any president who allows himself to be impeached for having sexual relations with an adult woman to whom he was not married is not fit enough to run a self-service coffee machine, let alone a country. That is quite regardless of his politics.
It is said about my country, too, that it is risky to appear too intelligent. As a result, either most people are stupid, or they act that way whenever the sort of people are around who like to feel safe by categorising people into simple little boxes. "He's a ditch-digger, so he must be dumb: he's a scientist, so he must be intelligent: he has an RP accent, so he must be a gentleman".
Both of our countries practise the most stupid sorts of self-deception and hypocrisy.

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Quiet part of Hertfordshire
England

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I think it's about time that the snide quips about Bush's intelligence were laid to rest. He has more capability in his little finger than his predecessor had in his whole body, charisma and high intelligence notwithstanding.[/nq]
Sorry, Robin. At best the jury is out on that. IMO, the US economy is in grave danger, and Bush is making things worse, not better. The administration's planning for post-war Iraq has proven to be almost ludicrously bad. And it took great skill and persistence for him to alienate as many allies as he has and hang Blair out to dry in the process.
[nq:1]Any president who allows himself to be impeached for having sexual relations with an adult woman to whom he was not married is not fit enough to run a self-service coffee machine, let alone a country.[/nq]
He was impeached for obstructing justice and lying under oath. It was a ****-fool thing to do. Of course, he felt he had to lie to cover up what was going on with Monica. So if he had kept his pants on with her, he wouldn't have had to lie. The whole thing contributed to the 50-50 polarization of the country and the farce of the 2000 election and aftermath. No, Clinton doesn't get a free pass. But I think the jury is still out on him as well.
[nq:1]That is quite regardless of his politics.[/nq]
Yup. Moral turpitude respects no party affiliation.
[nq:1]Both of our countries practise the most stupid sorts of self-deception and hypocrisy.[/nq]
And all that practice has made us very good at it.

Bob Lieblich
Independent

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Yes, but you apparently overlooked an even easier fix: "my seven years of experience", which is much the more natural form anyway.[/nq]
This fix did occur to me, but I rejected it because it causes the clash between felicity and grammar, as the grammatical subject(years) and the conceptual subject(exprerience) do not coincide. Mike

Usenet · Answer

(snip)
[nq:1]I think it's about time that the snide quips about Bush's intelligencewere laid to rest. He has more capability in ... not fit enough to run a self-service coffee machine, let alone a country. That is quite regardless of his politics.[/nq]
The image of a decisive and confident leader which Bush wishes to project doesn't necessarily imply the man is a competent executive, and coming from me, that is a restrained statement. His administration lied about why the Iraqi war was necessary at the point and time upon which it was executed, on top of which, the Pentagon had no post-combat plan to deal with the uprooted Baathist system, the result of which is the insurgency and bloodshed we now see.
Clinton wasn't the first president to unzip his fly at the nearest opportunity, and your comparisons to the harm Bush is doing to the civil liberties under my Constitution with Clinton's *** drive disgust me and if you keep posting about your relationship with your ex-wife in public I'm going to put you back in the kill file. I see you have no consideration for mud-slinging.
Get a grip Robin.
Joanne

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I think it's about time that the snide quips about Bush's intelligence were laid to rest.[/nq]
I'll agree with that. It's getting out of hand.
[nq:1]He has more capability in his little finger than his predecessor had in his whole body, charisma and high intelligence ... not fit enough to run a self-service coffee machine, let alone a country. That is quite regardless of his politics.[/nq]
Uh oh, you're sure to get into a flame war with those words.

I'll try to restrain myself and make just a couple of statements.
1. Who would've thought that some young lady would keep a dressunlaundered for a couple of years just in case she had to produce it for an impeachment hearing.
2. Clinton handled a lot of things a lot better than Kaiser Bush II ishandling them.
3. The whole sexual escapade stuff that brought down Clinton wouldn'thave been page 10 news in the rest of the world if the same happened to other leaders.
4. Finally, it simply shows that the Democrats have more fun in life.They are not going around invading other countries like KB II just because his talleywhacker is subnormal in size (and use).

-YJ

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1](snip)[/nq]
Hear hear, Joanne. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are under the worst attack ever.
You said it best. Our "leaders" can't even agree on what's going on over there in Iraq. They have no respect for other national leaders who urge restraint. Kaiser Bush II has absolutely no domestic policy and his foreign policy stinks except to the rest of the isolationist cowboys in our country.
[nq:1]Get a grip Robin.[/nq]
I'll second that.
[nq:1]Joanne[/nq]
-YJ

Seven years experience

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions