It's correct - the TARDIS isn't something they are acknowledging as having sentient thoughts, so they aren't screditing it with being able to notice.
I would imagine it would be written like this:
'The Doctor and the TARDIS' hasn't noticed. - 'The Doctor and the TARDIS' being one thing.
Sorry, but that just looks and sounds wrong.
'In the TARDIS' makes a hell of a lot more sense.
"The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know" makes no sense to me either. Why is 'and the TARDIS' in brackets? Putting it in brackets implies that it has similar properties to the Doctor - that it is sentient, in this particular sentence. Which means that there's no need to stick it in brackets, and 'have not noticed' would be correct there.
"The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know" makes no sense to me either. Why is 'and the TARDIS' in brackets? Putting it in brackets implies that it has similar properties to the Doctor - that it is sentient, in this particular sentence. Which means that there's no need to stick it in brackets, and 'have not noticed' would be correct there.
You're not understanding what was meant by the brackets. In fact you've turned it completely opposite - it means that that particular part of the sentence is superfluous: that the sentence would still read sensibly without that information.
Therefore 'have not noticed' does not work.
BTW - grammar doesn't have to 'look and sound right' in order to be right. Especially nowadays when grammar has got sloppy and Americanised in a lot of media.
You're not understanding what was meant by the brackets. In fact you've turned it completely opposite - it means that that particular part of the sentence is superfluous: that the sentence would still read sensibly without that information.
Therefore 'have not noticed' does not work.
BTW - grammar doesn't have to 'look and sound right' in order to be right. Especially nowadays when grammar has got sloppy and Americanised in a lot of media.
Yes, the brackets make it superfluous. But you can't just stick random words into a set of brackets either. They have to bear some relation to what's being said or written.
Yes, the brackets make it superfluous. But you can't just stick random words into a set of brackets either. They have to bear some relation to what's being said or written.
Indeed - the TARDIS belongs to the Doctor. It is not a separate entity (as I have explained in other posts), therefore it has been put into brackets...
I can't believe this debate is still rolling on: the iplayer subtitles definitely has it down as "the doctor in the tardis doesn't know" - end of argument, surely?
Indeed - the TARDIS belongs to the Doctor. It is not a separate entity (as I have explained in other posts), therefore it has been put into brackets...
All correct grammatically.
Nope, sorry. I still completely disagree with you.
Does the sentence 'The Doctor (and his hair) doesn't eat fish' make any sense to you?
Yes, the hair belongs to the Doctor, but it has no relation to the rest of the sentence, like you're suggesting is happening in your example.
Well she is in the TARDIS. I hadn't thought of that but quite like it.
We all assumed that "The Doctor in the TARDIS" (which is what is said according to the iplayer subtitles - round about the 45 min 30 second mark) was 11, maybe that's the bit we're all missing in TEH, maybe the Doctor in this case is River. Nice bit of misdirection if true.
Anyway, the sentence: The Doctor and his hair doesn't eat fish.
It does make sense.
Because it's: the Doctor with his hair not eating fish, not: Neither the Doctor nor his hair eat fish. It would be nonsensical to include the hair as part of the non-fish eating subjects of the sentence. There is only one non-fish eating subject, and that would be the Doctor.
I'm afraid you're not making me change my mind. Although, it's not really a case of that - it's knowing grammar or not...
Anyway, the sentence: The Doctor and his hair doesn't eat fish.
It does make sense.
Because it's: the Doctor with his hair not eating fish, not: Neither the Doctor nor his hair eat fish. It would be nonsensical to include the hair as part of the non-fish eating subjects of the sentence. There is only one non-fish eating subject, and that would be the Doctor.
I'm afraid you're not making me change my mind. Although, it's not really a case of that - it's knowing grammar or not...
These words are spoken by an alien inhabiting three bodies, and confused about which mouth to use. It would be hardly surprising if it did have trouble knowing when to use singular and plural.
Anyway, the sentence: The Doctor and his hair doesn't eat fish.
It does make sense.
Because it's: the Doctor with his hair not eating fish, not: Neither the Doctor nor his hair eat fish. It would be nonsensical to include the hair as part of the non-fish eating subjects of the sentence. There is only one non-fish eating subject, and that would be the Doctor.
I'm afraid you're not making me change my mind. Although, it's not really a case of that - it's knowing grammar or not...
Knowing grammar? Oh dear.
I had a really long post written out, but basically I'll sum it up by saying that you don't know how to use brackets.
In most cases, and particularly in the sentence you've tried to insist is grammatically correct, parantheses should be able to be replaced by commas. Using parantheses just gives that sentence fragment lesser importance.
'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' does not make grammatical sense, no matter how hard you're trying to argue it does.
I had a really long post written out, but basically I'll sum it up by saying that you don't know how to use brackets.
In most cases, and particularly in the sentence you've tried to insist is grammatically correct, parantheses should be able to be replaced by commas. Using parantheses just gives that sentence fragment lesser importance.
'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' does not make grammatical sense, no matter how hard you're trying to argue it does.
Sorry - I was simplifying. Didn't want to confuse you, as you started off sounding like it would be difficult to explain, having not noticed that you were wrong. Using brackets was an easier option to go with.
'The Doctor and the Tardis doesn't know' doesn't grammatically agree with itself. It should be don't know.
That's not opinion, it's empirically true.
However, it's possible to write a character who speaks grammatically incorrectly - and as this thread shows, there are plenty of people who WOULD use that form.
The question is, is Prisoner Zero such a character?
Well, maybe if P0 is really Rose's mum. Otherwise? Nah.
It's 'in'. You've just been thrown off by a child actor with poor diction.
Sorry - I was simplifying. Didn't want to confuse you, as you started off sounding like it would be difficult to explain, having not noticed that you were wrong. Using brackets was an easier option to go with.
You carry on with your opinion though.
You didn't choose brackets to simplify anything for me, you were already using them by the time I joined that part of the discussion.
In any case, 'The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know' or 'The Doctor and the TARDIS doesn't know' OR 'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' make no grammatical sense, brackets or not.
Edited to add: By the way, apologies to everyone else! This must be one of the most tedious arguments to hit these forums.
You didn't choose brackets to simplify anything for me, you were already using them by the time I joined that part of the discussion.
In any case, 'The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know' or 'The Doctor and the TARDIS doesn't know' OR 'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' make no grammatical sense, brackets or not.
Edited to add: By the way, apologies to everyone else! This must be one of the most tedious arguments to hit these forums.
One last attempt, then I'm done:
You wouldn't say:
'The Doctor don't know'
Yet by pointing out that I am incorrect using brackets and commas is, in essence, exactly what you are saying.
If you can't understand that, then I can't explain it to you any clearer.
"The Doctor in the Tardis doesnt know"
Anyway i'm confused about this why would the angels and prisoner zero be surprised that the Doctor doesnt know about the Cracks or the Pandorica?
Is he supposed to know he is ultimately going to be placed in the Pandorica and that the Tardis will blow up.
Yet by pointing out that I am incorrect using brackets and commas is, in essence, exactly what you are saying.
If you can't understand that, then I can't explain it to you any clearer.
No, it's not. It's really not. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.
I'm saying that the subject of the sentence is 'The Doctor'. By adding 'and the TARDIS', you're making the subject plural. Therefore, 'don't know' would be correct in that instance.
The only way that 'doesn't know' can be correct is by making the subject singular. The subject isn't singular here because 'and' makes it plural.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Unless you want me to point you to some beginners' grammar sites.
No, it's not. It's really not. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.
I'm saying that the subject of the sentence is 'The Doctor'. By adding 'and the TARDIS', you're making the subject plural. Therefore, 'don't know' would be correct in that instance.
The only way that 'doesn't know' can be correct is by making the subject singular. The subject isn't singular here because 'and' makes it plural.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Unless you want me to point you to some beginners' grammar sites.
Yes please.
But before you do, just have a quick swot-up yourself.
Comments
So who's the other doctor in the TARDIS? Doctor River Song.
Sorry, but that just looks and sounds wrong.
'In the TARDIS' makes a hell of a lot more sense.
"The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know" makes no sense to me either. Why is 'and the TARDIS' in brackets? Putting it in brackets implies that it has similar properties to the Doctor - that it is sentient, in this particular sentence. Which means that there's no need to stick it in brackets, and 'have not noticed' would be correct there.
You're not understanding what was meant by the brackets. In fact you've turned it completely opposite - it means that that particular part of the sentence is superfluous: that the sentence would still read sensibly without that information.
Therefore 'have not noticed' does not work.
BTW - grammar doesn't have to 'look and sound right' in order to be right. Especially nowadays when grammar has got sloppy and Americanised in a lot of media.
Yes, the brackets make it superfluous. But you can't just stick random words into a set of brackets either. They have to bear some relation to what's being said or written.
Indeed - the TARDIS belongs to the Doctor. It is not a separate entity (as I have explained in other posts), therefore it has been put into brackets...
All correct grammatically.
Nope, sorry. I still completely disagree with you.
Does the sentence 'The Doctor (and his hair) doesn't eat fish' make any sense to you?
Yes, the hair belongs to the Doctor, but it has no relation to the rest of the sentence, like you're suggesting is happening in your example.
Well she is in the TARDIS. I hadn't thought of that but quite like it.
We all assumed that "The Doctor in the TARDIS" (which is what is said according to the iplayer subtitles - round about the 45 min 30 second mark) was 11, maybe that's the bit we're all missing in TEH, maybe the Doctor in this case is River. Nice bit of misdirection if true.
Not the same at all - the TARDIS belongs to the Doctor, hair is part of the Doctor.
Two completely different grammatical rules.
You can disagree if you wish - that's your prerogative. It doesn't, however, stop you from being wrong.
Spoilers!
Change 'hair' to 'chair' then. :rolleyes:
It's no different.
Anyway, the sentence: The Doctor and his hair doesn't eat fish.
It does make sense.
Because it's: the Doctor with his hair not eating fish, not: Neither the Doctor nor his hair eat fish. It would be nonsensical to include the hair as part of the non-fish eating subjects of the sentence. There is only one non-fish eating subject, and that would be the Doctor.
I'm afraid you're not making me change my mind. Although, it's not really a case of that - it's knowing grammar or not...
These words are spoken by an alien inhabiting three bodies, and confused about which mouth to use. It would be hardly surprising if it did have trouble knowing when to use singular and plural.
Knowing grammar? Oh dear.
I had a really long post written out, but basically I'll sum it up by saying that you don't know how to use brackets.
In most cases, and particularly in the sentence you've tried to insist is grammatically correct, parantheses should be able to be replaced by commas. Using parantheses just gives that sentence fragment lesser importance.
'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' does not make grammatical sense, no matter how hard you're trying to argue it does.
Sorry - I was simplifying. Didn't want to confuse you, as you started off sounding like it would be difficult to explain, having not noticed that you were wrong. Using brackets was an easier option to go with.
You carry on with your opinion though.
That's not opinion, it's empirically true.
However, it's possible to write a character who speaks grammatically incorrectly - and as this thread shows, there are plenty of people who WOULD use that form.
The question is, is Prisoner Zero such a character?
Well, maybe if P0 is really Rose's mum. Otherwise? Nah.
It's 'in'. You've just been thrown off by a child actor with poor diction.
You didn't choose brackets to simplify anything for me, you were already using them by the time I joined that part of the discussion.
In any case, 'The Doctor (and the TARDIS) doesn't know' or 'The Doctor and the TARDIS doesn't know' OR 'The Doctor, and the TARDIS, doesn't know' make no grammatical sense, brackets or not.
Edited to add: By the way, apologies to everyone else! This must be one of the most tedious arguments to hit these forums.
One last attempt, then I'm done:
You wouldn't say:
'The Doctor don't know'
Yet by pointing out that I am incorrect using brackets and commas is, in essence, exactly what you are saying.
If you can't understand that, then I can't explain it to you any clearer.
"The Doctor in the Tardis doesnt know"
Anyway i'm confused about this why would the angels and prisoner zero be surprised that the Doctor doesnt know about the Cracks or the Pandorica?
Is he supposed to know he is ultimately going to be placed in the Pandorica and that the Tardis will blow up.
No, it's not. It's really not. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion.
I'm saying that the subject of the sentence is 'The Doctor'. By adding 'and the TARDIS', you're making the subject plural. Therefore, 'don't know' would be correct in that instance.
The only way that 'doesn't know' can be correct is by making the subject singular. The subject isn't singular here because 'and' makes it plural.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Unless you want me to point you to some beginners' grammar sites.
Yes please.
But before you do, just have a quick swot-up yourself.
oooooooooooooh yeahhhhhhhhhhhh
(am chuffed got quagmire quote on a doc who message board)
No, but it might be a good idea. It's sometimes difficult to tell by listening whether it's the Doctor in the tardis or the Doctor and the tardis.
In FAS I've stopped it and listened again but I'm still not sure whether Angel Bob says "The Doctor in (or and) the tardis hasn't noticed".