Forum Moderators: open
I tell you, that will, I fear, become Standard English within twenty years.
go and look up "should of", "would of" and "could of" on G. Frightening stats.
I am actually an English teacher abroad so this subject is close to my heart. I see things on forums on a daily basis which my First Certificate students would shudder at.
another fave: "I work on my site everyday."
agh!
and its not just Misspelled Words , what about wrong tense
Lawman - that's an excellent site.I know, I'm the one who posted the link to it ;)
Oops - sorry about that! I saw the "butt nekid" link and skipped right over your link.
Oh well. I have to go knock another isuckle off (of) the awening. (The cold here has been historicle.)
and my personal favourite ... are in place of our! Yeeesh!
If you go through the long Google update posts, you'll find hundreds more! :)
of - off ;)
We will probably have to agree to differ and to join forces to defend the breach of such monstrosities as Marcia has elucidated ..
BTW ..Marcia ..there is also popsicle :)
Essex boy is to be exonerated from our reprobation on the grounds he is young and from Essex and therefore suffers the dual adverse effects of post 70's education and environmental influences ..and bad posture contracted during the driving of reliant robins [auta5p.car.cz]..yes that really is what passed for a car in the UK ..and yes ..only ( fools and horses ) and the inhabitants of Eastern Great Britain ( and apparently eastern European "hot rodders" ;))) could regard them with affection ..;)
With regard to the fora here ..it is interesting to note that whilst most posters who would claim english as their first language actually post relatively coherently ..the titles of threads frequently contain the most elementary errors ..
However ,
There is another forum I visit wearing one of my other "artistic hats" with primarily American posters where the level of english evidenced by those under the age of 50 is so bad one is forced to assume that they find their way across country by memory as they cannot possibly expect the road signs to be written in the manner they themselves think the words such as the names of their own home towns are spelt..their job descriptions are "admins" and "tech support" or "management" ..and yet the level of english is that of a child of 7 years old in the 1960's in an average primary school ..
The same applies to most communications I receive from the UK ..and France ..in fact one is forced to admit that the most accurate use of language is frequently reserved to the email spammers ..they at least "know" when they miss spell , or use a word out of all context ..
unlike much of the web ..
Read the adsense or the update fora here ..in the main semi literates writing about how they can pay peanuts for articles to make a dollar per day for their "relavant sites" ..that "shoold be on numbah wun" ..
my remarks on the adsense and update threads were typed without having seen Liane's comment ..they do have to constitute the zone where a verb , noun or just coherency would fear to tread ..let alone rationality of any sort ..I have to confess all those bridges and the bleating there sometimes is just more than I can resist before the first shards of sunlight force me away
[edited by: Leosghost at 11:34 pm (utc) on Dec. 21, 2005]
transitions, changes etc..
...or we (well rather you as i am not native english speaker) would still speak like the saxons did... right?
cheers
viggen
The former is natural ..the latter demeans the user and the listener or reader ..
And most importantly is bad for communication of ideas and concepts , feelings etc ..
Bad communication induces missunderstandings , and can in extremis lead to disputes and even wars ..
Where I live now ..France , the situation is worse the language is artificially ossified in the name of national and cultural identity ..and the consequent pendulum swing by the young who wish their language to "live " a little has resulted in linguistic barbarism where many can no longer understand the "patois" used by those who live 200 kms away from them even if sent as SMS ( here known as "textos" ) ..as a result of being too rigid on the one hand and just lazy on the other ..their language will die within 2 or 3 centuries inspite of the frenzied jingoistic efforts of their cynical politicians to confuse language and identity and worth .
Said politicians speak for the most part very good english ..however they disparage this language at every opportunity to their own people as the "invader" and destroyer of their culture ..they make damn sure their own kids are fluent english speakers too .
"you should of known better"
I tell you, that will, I fear, become Standard English within twenty years.
That's probably because the spoken usage is often contracted as should've, etc. I see it a lot too. Hmmm.... "alot" instead of "a lot" is another.
Actually the use of the apostrophe in the possessive sense to which I was referring was in Marcia's or oneguy's or Lawman's etc ..although the contraction of "it has" is in fact making a contraction of a possessive .."has" being an indicator of possession.
lol... now you're just confusing me. I suppose you are right about the indicator of possession.
This is somewhat within the realms of arguing over...
That's why we're in foo. We'd be headed to an english grammar/spelling forum if we were too worried about it. :)
I don't think any of the english spelling or grammar stuff bothers me much. I just sail right through it. Seeing someone call another a "looser" is usually funny to me because of the context.
Regarding the "it's" as possesive, that's an entirely different pair of shoes (so to speak) from "its". "it's" as a contraction of "it has" would be used (always check usage!) in such contexts as "It has a toy" ("it" refering to teh neutral baby for a german-thinking person). While "its a toy" refers to the toy. If you want to refer to teh baby again you have to drop the article and use "its toy" so "its" and "it's" (for it has) are not interchangeable at all.
So always check ("cehck" is another common mistake for me) they phrase usage, and if uncertain, substitute the possibilities and read them out. The bad ones usually sound bad (to me at least).
Let's see if I managed to sidestep all my finger-knotting typos.
Another I didn't see mentioned is the use of an apostrophe in a plural word.
For example, I got an email from a co-worker that said: "Hi Writer’s of <company>, You guys have been chosen to create a 60 word ad..."
Yes, I think we were chosen because we know the word is "writers" not "Writer's".
I'm a bit of a spelling and grammar freak... :)
some of those are not actually considered mistakes.
1. singular their: [crossmyt.com...]
[languagehat.com...]
would you ever say, "put somebody in his or her place"?
2. commas at end of lists
Using commas in lists:Commas are used to separate out items in a list. However, the use of a comma between the last two items in a list is optional and it only matters that you should be consistent.
EXAMPLE: Clark brought pizza, wine, garlic bread, and a movie.
EXAMPLE: Clark brought pizza, wine, garlic bread and a movie.Both of these are grammatically correct. It is normal US convention to use the final comma; it is normal British-English convention not to use it. Whichever format you use, ensure that you stick to it throughout your story and you'll be fine.
happy foo'ing!
It is normal US convention to use the final comma; it is normal British-English convention not to use it.
Bl**dy yanks, teach them a little bit of English and they start telling us to make our commas boldly go (aargghh!) where no commas have gone before. :)
Those were very interesting links, thanks. The 'singular their' does indeed have a long history, however in linguistics a long history does not imply correct current usage. Many regional forms of speech are remnants of previous historical forms but are still held as incorrect.
As an example, consider the termination of a spoken phrase with a preposition. This is widespread within 'The Westcountry' (primarily comprising Cornwall and Devon), particularly with reference to locations, e.g. "Where've you been to?".
The resurgence in use of this archaic form is almost certainly a side-effect of 'politically correct' forms of speech. Whereas conventionally 'his' was used both as the masculine and 'gender-neutral' term, this usage been criticised as potentially sexist. The politically AND grammatically correct alternative is 'his or her', which is certainly wordy, and has resulted in the substitution of 'their'.
would you ever say, "put somebody in his or her place"?
The use of a comma before the last item of a list is something I will admit is debatable. The most convincing argument, and the one that convinced me, is that it is absolutely required when listing groups.
e.g. There are separate draws for knives and forks, mugs and cups, and plates and bowls.
Without the comma before the word 'and', the meaning changes to indicate that cups, mugs, plates, and bowls are to be placed in the same draw. For the sake of consistency, it would be poor practice to apply a comma only where it is required to avoid abiguity.
it would be poor practice to apply a comma only where it is required to avoid abiguity.
In the USA, possibly. In the UK/Ireland, other than when spearating groups, the comma is not considered to be 'correct'. So it really depends what you have been taught and what is the accepted standard in the form of English you are using.
That said, I agree that inconsistent use is worse than just going for one option and sticking with it.
Another thing I have noticed often is the different usage of 'are' and 'is' when referring, for example, to a company.
Is it "CompanyName are to introduce a revolutionary new widget" or "CompanyName is to introduce a revolutionary new widget"
The former is widely used in 'British' English, it appears regularly on such sites as the BBC's and in repected newspapers, but is just wrong in US English.
And has no basis in how English has ever or is currently used.
"who did you go to the party with?"
"who were you talking to?"
"what horse did you put your money on?"
all perfectly acceptable utterances in Standard English.
As Churchill famously commented when one of his memos was corrected by a civil servant,
"this is nonsense up with which I will not put."
e.g. There are separate draws for knives and forks, mugs and cups, and plates and bowls.
Thusly.. plus bas drawer
"abiguity" ahem
and later "spearing"
( come on people , we really should be using the preveiw tool for spell checking is this thread ..even if I never do so under normal conditions ;))
Also,"company name" is by definition referring to more than one person "company" , therefore "are" is correct and "is" is not ..the former being used for referring to plurals and the latter for singulars
One cannot hide behind the "fiction" of a legal "entity" when disregarding the rules ( see Enron ) even in grammar.
vincevincevince you do realise that you are risking the ire of the other "shires" that comprise the "west country" ..Dorsetshire , Somerset , Borsetshire ( the midlands "archers" county where the same character's accent can drift hundreds of miles in one sentence ;)..and not forgetting Mummerset ..where all the RADA students go to retire ;)
It is site! How can people get that wrong?
( come on people , we really should be using the preveiw tool for spell checking is this thread ..even if I never do so under normal conditions ;))
pride goeth before a fall
spell checking in this thread ..
noticed too late for the edit button ..cuts slice of humble pie ..adds mayo and chili sauce
Wonders? do mods spell better than the rest of us ..or is it just they have their edit buttons available all the time? and can thus remove the incriminating items ;)
do mods spell better than the rest of us
We is just smarter than you.
Also,"company name" is by definition referring to more than one person
Whose definiton (or in keeping with the title of this thread, I should have said "who's" :)). Ever hear of a corporation that has only one owner?
Here's another defintion:
A legal entity chartered by a state or the federal government and is separate and distinct from the persons who own it. A corporation is considered an artificial person--it may own property, incur debts, sue or be sued. Ownership is held by stockholders who have limited liability--that is, they can only lose what they invest.
"company" ..in the original sense means band of men ..so actually does corporation ..as defined in England hundreds of years before your ancestors emigrated to where you now abuse the english language from ;))
and before there were lawyers definitions to ( attempt to ) make words mean other than that which they had always meant and what they were intended to mean ;)
"who did you go to the party with?"
No kidding. lol.
"With whom did you go to the party?"
I could pull that off with a smirk on my face every now and then, but if I spoke like that all of the time, people would look at me like I was an alien and not even understand what I asked most of the time.
I think that was Churchill's point.
Leosghost, did you spell review as "reveiw" on purpose? Are you toying with us.
added: "site" as "sight" is another classic. Cheers for remembering that one!
lawyers definitions
That's where he's toying. :)
