This page is for accumulating amusing passages – real or hypothetical – made possible by referring to ships as she, and for general derision of that pretentious and stupid practice. (Ridicule of other forms of stylistic pretension is welcome as well.) It was inspired by this discussion at WT:MOS (and see also WT:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") for more background).

Queen Elizabeth slipped majestically into the water

[edit]
After Queen Elizabeth broke a bottle of champagne against the ship's gigantic bow she slipped majestically into the water.
She also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht Hohenzollern.
Fearing that he might lose the prize if the winds changed, Morris rammed her.
Archibald Dickson raised his flag in her.
She blew up the following morning.
She measured 75 ​20⁄94 tonnes burthen and was armed with 8 small guns.
She spent her entire career in the Channel.
She had a long career under several distinguished commanders.
She ran onshore off of the east end of Puerto Rico.
Lusitania does not appear to be so lusty as the Mauretania. If Lussie doesn't hump herself and do it first she won't be in it with her big sister.
Acasta's boats got her off. (This image is eu­phe­mis­ti­cally listed under Category:People at the beach in art.)

Into the woulds

[edit]
Wouldy Wouldpecker

N.B. There is an appropriate use of the "he would later" form, and that's when taking a temporary jump into the future during an otherwise chronologically linear narrative -- but to be clear, not all such cases justify the "he would later" form. Here's an example (abridged a bit here) from Statue of John Harvard:

The commission weighed heavily on French even as the figure neared completion. "I am sometimes scared by the importance of this work. It is a subject that one might not have in a lifetime," wrote the sculptor‍—‌who thirty years later would create the statue of Abraham Lincoln for the Lincoln Memorial‍—‌"and a failure would be inexcusable."
French's final model was ready the following May and realized in bronze by the Henry-Bonnard Bronze Company over the next several months.

Now, technically "who thirty years later would create" could be rendered as "who thirty years later created", and it's hard to explain why exactly the former form is preferable to the latter, in this particular case. (There might be other appropriate uses as well, but your correspondent just vacuumed the house so he's too pooped to think of any.)[2]

The following examples all lack the key component, found in the above passage, that's required to justify the "he would later" form: a temporary jump into the future. So the woulds get axed:[3]

Closely related constructions include:

Misc

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "The Lusitania ..." The Appleton Weekly Post. October 17, 1907. p. 6. Retrieved January 2, 2020 – via Newspapers.com. Open access icon
  2. ^ And BTW, this is also one of the very rare cases where a bit of WP:Elegant variation -- "the sculptor" -- is justified, unless the reader can see a not-awkward way of recasting the sentence to avoid it.
  3. ^ Thanks to our esteemed colleague GuardianH for this felicitous metaphor.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=998185328