# ASF spelling and grammar lessons



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning. As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it.

Numbercruncher, pay attention to this lesson in particular.

*LESSON 1: Their, There and They're*

*Their* is a possessive pronoun. It always describes a noun. 

Note the spelling of their. It comes from the word they, so the 'e' comes before the 'i'. 

*There* is an adverb meaning "that location." It is sometimes used with the verb to be as an idiom. It is spelled like here which means "this location." 

*They're* is a contraction of they are. Note the spelling: The 'a' from are is replaced by an apostrophe. 


Examples: *Their* dog has fleas. (possessive of they) 

I put the collar right *there*. (that location) 

*There* are five prime numbers less than ten. 
(with to be) 

*They're* 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. (contraction of they are) 

Practice here: http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm

Next lesson soon.


----------



## rub92me (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Next lesson soon.



Your such a teese :


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

rub92me said:


> teese




You mean 'tease'.


----------



## Prospector (13 September 2007)

I here what you are saying Joe, but sumtimes those keys just get theirselves in the weigh and when you go back to reed what you have typed, well, its like those keys have a life of there own!


----------



## springhill (13 September 2007)

Mi mom allways sed eye hadd badd grammer nd mi speeling wos attroshious asweel


----------



## Kauri (13 September 2007)

> This thread is my attempt to improve *people's* literacy



  Where's the edit button???   
 Cheers
.,..'......Kauri


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> I here what you are saying Joe, but sumtimes those keys just get theirselves in the weigh and when you go back to reed what you have typed, well, its like those keys have a life of there own!




Proofread, proofread, proofread! 

I never click 'Submit Reply' until I have read through my post at least twice to ensure that it is free of spelling and grammatical errors.


----------



## YELNATS (13 September 2007)

rub92me said:


> Your such a teese :




Yes, you are (or you're).


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Kauri said:


> Where's the edit button???
> Cheers
> .,..'......Kauri




I thought that was correct. Am I wrong?

Do we have an English teacher in the house?


----------



## Prospector (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> I thought that was correct. Am I wrong?






Actually, I think you can have it both ways!  People's or peoples' - but if you leave out the the latter ' then it comes up as an error.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Yup - You can't have a singular people, so it should be peoples' literacy!  But for convention the ' is usually not used!:




But it's possessive, so it should be people's literacy like the People's Republic of China.

Adjudicator!


----------



## Prospector (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> But it's possessive, so it should be people's literacy like the People's Republic of China.
> 
> Adjudicator!




Yup - You can't have a singular people, so it should be peoples' literacy! But for convention the ' is usually not used! :

Too quick for me Joe!  Will google some more!  Pesky stuff being grammatically correct, isn't it, which is why most people just can't be bothered with it!


----------



## Kauri (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> I thought that was correct. Am I wrong?
> 
> Do we have an English teacher in the house?




   Joe,
           Don't take any notice of me, English is my second language, my first is monosyllabic grunting...      ...
       Cheers
................Kauri


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Kauri said:


> my first is monosyllabic grunting...




That's my second language.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Too quick for me Joe!  Will google some more!  Pesky stuff being grammatically correct, isn't it, which is why most people just can't be bothered with it!




Sounds like lesson number two should be on the use of the apostrophe.


----------



## Judd (13 September 2007)

Yes, you are (or you're) wrong, Joe.  Notice I did not say "No, you are right."

The "s" apostrophe, denotes the plural.  The apostrophe is used to denote ownership or association.

Apostrophe s (‘s) is used to indicate possession for most singular nouns or plural nouns not ending in s.  Example "The student's text books were out of date." (used if I were referring to one student.)  However, if I was referring to all students then the sentence becomes "The students' text books were out of date."

This is also known as "Geeze, I wish youse bastards could speak English proper."


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Judd said:


> Yes, you are (or you're) wrong, Joe.  Notice I did not say "No, you are right."
> 
> The "s" apostrophe, denotes the plural.  The apostrophe is used to denote ownership or association.
> 
> Apostrophe s (‘s) is used to indicate possession for most singular nouns or plural nouns not ending in s.  Example "The student's text books were out of date." (used if I were referring to one student.)  However, if I was referring to all students then the sentence becomes "The students' text books were out of date."




Thanks Judd!  

Well I stand corrected. Just goes to show we can all improve our grammar and spelling irrespective of what we think we already know.


----------



## Stan 101 (13 September 2007)

Was always taught that example would be possessive.



regards,


Edit: Just saw Judd's thread..


----------



## numbercruncher (13 September 2007)

Egnislh is a fnaastic lnaauge as you olny need the fsrit and lsat ltteer in pcale to be ustdnerood.


----------



## Mazrox (13 September 2007)

Except that "people" is already plural? I'm with Joe on this one (although I'm no expert) - you would say "the children's smiles", not "the childrens' smiles" - (I think!) because the plural is "children" and not "childrens"...

Good thread, Joe! We can all pull our socks up! 

Maz


----------



## Judd (13 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Egnislh is a fnaastic lnaauge as you olny need the fsrit and lsat ltteer in pcale to be ustdnerood.




That's its bloody German heritage for you.  By the bye, in respect of apostrophes, if you have a given name such as James and you wish to refer to something that James may own then it is James', eg James' share portfolio.

And it is a fantastic and fascinating language.  Simply read some Jon Donne, Milton or any other poet and just revel in how it can soar to the heights.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Judd, perhaps you can clarify. Is it referred to as 'The People's Republic of China' because 'people' in that context is considered singular?

i.e. The Chinese people are one 'people'.


----------



## justjohn (13 September 2007)

dis threat is getin worser bey tha minut:


----------



## Prospector (13 September 2007)

Which explains exactly why people's grammar is so bad!  Or, should that be _are so bad_ or _peoples' grammar  _ :


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> Which explains exactly why people's grammar is so bad!  Or, should that be _are so bad_ or _peoples' grammar  _ :




I don't actually think its that hard. My view is that the education system has let people down and it seems to be getting worse. The spelling and grammar of those on ASF who are under 30 is noticably worse than that of those who are over 30. I also put some of the blame on mobile phone texting which has largely destroyed the spelling of many of those in Generation Y. 

Effective communication is absolutely vital to getting your point across. I read some posts and can't quite figure out what it is that they are saying. In which case it's a wasted post. How you say something is just as important as what you say. The point of this thread is that we can all improve and learn to communicate more effectively. Sometimes we just need a reminder.

Of course, I'm a pedant.


----------



## Judd (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Judd, perhaps you can clarify. Is it referred to as 'The People's Republic of China' because 'people' in that context is considered singular?
> 
> i.e. The Chinese people are one 'people'.




The word People is a collective so it takes the form of the singular.  Very much the same as the words children or women.  You cannot have one children or one women.  Same applies to people.  So, "The People's Republic of China" is correct.

However, as always, there are rules within rules.  The simple example is committee.  That is a collective but when you are discussing, say, a decision of a single committee it is the "P&C Committee's decision" whereas, if you were discussing decisions of a group of them it would be "P&C Committees decisions."

Easy as, don't you think?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning. As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it.




A common mistake that I have noticed amongst many of the more senior posters is the misspelling of the word *definitely*. Thay are misled by the schwa, the sound coming at the unstressed portion of the word and spell it definately, which as Mark Twain would have said "It definitely a'int". Thus perhaps in future they could spell it correctly as many of their posts convey that  they are otherwise full of schwa. 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Definately

Garpal


----------



## Prospector (13 September 2007)

I do agree with you Joe, that people are losing (or is that loosing the art of the language.  And texting will further encourage loss of grammatical skills.

I shudder at spelling mistakes on television, even on the ABC!  And in books - the errors jump out from the text almost to the detriment of reading the story.

But the idiosyncracies of the English language has (some might say have?) contributed to the process.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A common mistake that I have noticed amongst many of the more senior posters is the misspelling of the word *definitely*. Thay are misled by the schwa, the sound coming at the unstressed portion of the word and spell it definately, which as Mark Twain would have said "It definitely a'int". Thus perhaps in future they could spell it correctly as many of their posts convey that  they are otherwise full of schwa.
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Definately
> 
> Garpal




Garpal,

I have a trick that has worked very well for me over the years with regard to the word 'definitely'. I just ensure that the word 'finite' is in the middle and 'de' and 'ly' on either side.


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A common mistake that I have noticed amongst many of the more senior posters is the misspelling of the word *definitely*. Thay are misled by the schwa, the sound coming at the unstressed portion of the word and spell it definately, which as Mark Twain would have said "It definitely a'int". Thus perhaps in future they could spell it correctly as many of their posts convey that  they are otherwise full of schwa.
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Definately
> 
> Garpal



Guilty 

Only recently have I realized the error there... and Joe's "finite" trick is how I cured myself of that one.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> I do agree with you Joe, that people are losing (or is that loosing the art of the language.




Lose and loose is THE word I see spelt D) wrong in forums most.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> I do agree with you Joe, that people are losing (or is that loosing the art of the language.  And texting will further encourage loss of grammatical skills.
> 
> I shudder at spelling mistakes on television, even on the ABC!  And in books - the errors jump out from the text almost to the detriment of reading the story.
> 
> But the idiosyncracies of the English language has (some might say have?) contributed to the process.




Agreed Prospector.

I was lucky. As soon as I was old enough to hold a book up one was shoved into my hands by my mother and compulsive reading as a child and a teenager followed naturally. When you read a lot, words that are spelled incorrectly just 'look' wrong. You see the word as a whole rather than just a sequence of letters. I owe my level of literacy solely to a love of reading. I don't believe language and literacy is taught effectively in schools. 

If I ever have a child I will be doing the same. There is no greater gift you can give a child than a love of reading.


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

Another trick for the word vehicle.

Think of a drunk driver. Ve 'hic' le. 

That one's served me well for over 20 years.


----------



## cmh888 (13 September 2007)

People*'*s versus Peoples*'*

People's represents ownership a group has over something.

Peoples' represents ownership [a group x (times) a group] has over something. It essentially 'doubles' a noun that is already a collective.

Adding an apostrophe _after _the 's' at the end generally performs the role of transposing singular ownership into plural ownership. There is no need to do this when the word is already plural (as is the case with the word 'people').


----------



## nioka (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Agreed Prospector.
> 
> I was lucky. As soon as I was old enough to hold a book up one was shoved into my hands by my mother and compulsive reading as a child and a teenager followed naturally. When you read a lot, words that are spelled incorrectly just 'look' wrong. You see the word as a whole rather than just a sequence of letters. I owe my level of literacy solely to a love of reading. I don't believe language and literacy is taught effectively in schools.
> 
> If I ever have a child I will be doing the same. There is no greater gift you can give a child than a love of reading.




You were lucky. I was taught spelling by a sadistic teacher who would go around the class asking students to spell a word. If you got it wrong you got the cane. Spelling was not my best subject but it certainly made me try hard. Late on my elder sister became a teacher and, as people did in those days, we used to write to one another. She used to often return my letters with the spelling corrected in red ink. I always read a lot but that didn't seem to help me with spelling. Anyway feel free to correct my posts if the spelling is not correct. 
 You are right. The spelling in some posts leaves a lot to be desired. I hope I am not the worst there is.


----------



## rnr (13 September 2007)

Will all members please note that due to the overwhelmingly positive response to the screening of the film *My Fair Lady*, by Joe Blow & Assoc., which was run for the benefit of those wishing to brush up on their English, the Administrators are anxious to announce, that next week they are screening *The Sound of Music* for those members who believe their singing is not quite up to scratch!

Some members may remember back this far but unfortunately I can’t think of any current movie equivalents.


----------



## rederob (13 September 2007)

Judd
A possessive apostrophe may be used before or after an "s" depending on the nature of the noun.
If a group of committees meet, and make a decision that they collectively own, then it becomes the committees' decision.
Beware of correcting others if you are prone to err.
Or stop being human.


----------



## sam76 (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning. As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it.
> 
> Numbercruncher, pay attention to this lesson in particular.
> 
> ...




Hey Joe,

Did you do a search before posting a new thread?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1597


----------



## Joe Blow (13 September 2007)

sam76 said:


> Hey Joe,
> 
> Did you do a search before posting a new thread?
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1597




I knew there was a spelling thread already but I had a bigger vision for this one.

Spelling AND grammar! :


----------



## reece55 (13 September 2007)

My favorite the other day (and I can't remember the member who posted) was that an ASF member amended their post and the reason given was "grammer". HAHAHAHAHA...... I meant to point it out previously, the irony was truly hilarious.

Joe, I would agree that our English language is quickly becoming corrupted by lazy mobile text style shortcuts - although, I would submit that I would have been guilty of this when posting quickly!!!!

Cheers
Reece


----------



## insider (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> You mean 'tease'.




LMAO  Gold


----------



## Julia (13 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Thanks Judd!
> 
> Well I stand corrected. Just goes to show we can all improve our grammar and spelling irrespective of what we think we already know.




Well I disagree.  I think Joe's original example was correct because 'people' is of itself a plural and therefore the apostrophe should come before the 's'.
The alternative would be to use the word 'persons' in which case the apostrophe would come after the 's' because the actual 's' makes the singular word 'person' plural.  Heavens, this is very hard to dissect.

For a definitive ruling, contact Roly Sussex, Professor of Applied Language Studies:  http://www.arts.uq.edu.au/slccs/index.html?page=18094&pid=.
He can answer any question about the English language.

Anyway, I fervently second Joe's plea for some attention to proof reading.
There are way too many misspellings and misuses of apostrophes.
Why is it that so many people are so enthusiastic about adding gratuitous apostrophes seemingly before final 's' in a word????
Example seen so often:  "banana's for sale"!!


----------



## numbercruncher (13 September 2007)

Once the Liberals get ousted and the education system gets fixed I think we may see improvement in about a decade


----------



## insider (13 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Well I disagree.  I think Joe's original example was correct because 'people' is of itself a plural and therefore the apostrophe should come before the 's'.
> The alternative would be to use the word 'persons' in which case the apostrophe would come after the 's' because the actual 's' makes the singular word 'person' plural.  Heavens, this is very hard to dissect.
> 
> For a definitive ruling, contact Roly Sussex, Professor of Applied Language Studies:  http://www.arts.uq.edu.au/slccs/index.html?page=18094&pid=.
> ...




When you take my name and make it possessive it turns from Dennis to Dennis' 

For example:

Dennis' bum looks cute in that new suit! 

Apparently you can also add another s if you wanted; Dennis's. But in my opinion it looks weird.


----------



## Julia (13 September 2007)

insider said:


> When you take my name and make it possessive it turns from Dennis to Dennis'
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...




You are, of course, quite right with your example.  That has no connection, though, with what I was pointing out above.

And, sadly, none of us are in the happy position of being able to comment on whether or not your bum does in fact look cute in that new suit!


----------



## insider (13 September 2007)

Julia said:


> You are, of course, quite right with your example.  That has no connection, though, with what I was pointing out above.
> 
> And, sadly, none of us are in the happy position of being able to comment on whether or not your bum does in fact look cute in that new suit!




But you can trust me  lol


----------



## Whiskers (13 September 2007)

nioka said:


> You were lucky. I was taught spelling by a sadistic teacher who would go around the class asking students to spell a word. If you got it wrong you got the cane. Spelling was not my best subject




I was taught english by a very, very pretty lady in mini skirts in grade 8. Didn't learn much.

I was taught english by a bad tempered old fashioned man who tended to sneak up behind and give us a clout over the ears, in grade 9 and 10. Too petrified of him to learn there.

Just as bad in science. He would just turn around from the blackboard and chuck some chalk or the duster at us. We got a bit of our own back with him though. When he turned back to the blackboard, we'd toss him with chalk. Didn't do much Good in science either.


----------



## cmh888 (13 September 2007)

How are your heterograph editing skills? 


Last Monday, I *one/won* *one/won* *pair/pear* of *pared/paired* *pears/pares*. My friend *one/won* *to/too*, only she *won/one* *to/two* pears. Her mum *won/one* *for/four*, and kept the *fore/four* *for/fore* … *you’ll/yule* never guess … *you’ll/yule* dinner (I heard she was inviting Yul Brynner). Anyway, enough about the *pares/pears*, time has lapsed and I need to do my *laps/lapse* as I would like my *waste/waist* to *waste/waist* away. I swim *weather/whether* the *whether/weather* is fine or *fowl/foul*, but always watch out for lingering *fowl/foul*. Speaking of watching, my watch is broken. I can’t remember *witch/which* *witch/which* borrowed it last, but I *here/hear* she *through/threw* it out the window while travelling *through/threw* a tunnel. My retriever retrieved it. Phew! A lovely dog, *he’ll/heel* *he’ll/heel* on command, but doesn’t enjoy running beside me while I pedal and peddle, selling a remedy of flower and flour. I *based/baste* my remedy on an ancient recipe that only works if you *baste/based* it first. The flowers are picked from deep in a *lair/layer*, and carefully spread out in a *lair/layer*. I’m starting to *tyre/tire* of pedalling and peddling, so I am thinking I *mite/might* *higher/hire* out my business and strive for *higher/hire* things. My next *main/mane* venture could be trimming *mains/manes* on show horses. I *might/mite* *right/write* to the *hoarse/horse* association to make sure I am making the *right/write* choice. *Eyed/I’d* hate to be *I’d/eyed* as indecisive. Well, I’m sure *we’ve/weave* all had enough of this rambling *peace/piece*. *Weave/We’ve* got to get back to weaving dreams of getting rich by trading stocks!

Next installment ... punctuation ...


----------



## ghotib (14 September 2007)

Those who love to read and who find the English language endlessly fascinating (you listening, Joe!) might enjoy the book "Words and Rules, The Ingredients of Language", by Steven Pinker. You might enjoy even more his earlier book "The Language Instinct". Both provide insight into how people learn and use language, how languages work, and how  "mistakes" in language usage demonstrate how minds and languages work. They're also both very entertainingly written.

Also very entertaining and considerably more specific is "Modern Australian Usage", edited by Nicholas Hudson. Here's the start of his article on the apostrophe:



> The apostrophe is used in English in two ways: (a) To indicate the dropping out of some letter(s), as in _can't_' (b) To flag a possessive form, as in _the dog's dinner._ We will see, however, that (b) originated as a version of (a).
> 
> There are four usages of the apostrophe:
> (1) those which are logical and 'correct';
> ...



So it's not surprising things get confusing. 

IMO Joe's original usage of _people's_ is correct, but Judd's would be correct in a different context. _People_ can indeed be used as a collective noun, for which _peoples_ is the plural form and _peoples'[]i] the possessive plural. I can't think of an example right now, but I'm sure they're around - something to do with international relations maybe. In the much smaller case of ASF, people is the plural of person (persons sets my teeth on edge) and people's is the possessive plural. 

I can't resist posting in full my favourite article from "Modern Australian Usage", especially as it's relevant to this thread:




*pedant, purist*  Both of these words mean a person who comments on linguistic niceties which others find boring. The difference is that you are a pedant, whereas I am a purist. This is because my standards arise from my direct understanding of the eternal truths, whereas yours stem from memory of some fusty old schoolmarm who taught you parsing.
		
Click to expand...



You have been warned!!!

Ghoti_


----------



## ghotib (14 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Lose and loose is THE word I see spelt D) wrong in forums most.



Me too. It used to drive me nuts, but then I started to realise that they're both exceptional spellings.

If you don't happen to know, why wouldn't you pronounce _loose[/] the same way you pronounce choose and lose to rhyme with hose? Or, for that matter, with a soft 's' at the end like dose (unless you're Scottish and pronounce dose like  
doze)? 

I still notice them, especially the use of loose for [lose_, but I don't get so annoyed because I can see how people might derive the wrong spelling. 

Ghoti


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2007)

ghotib said:


> Me too. It used to drive me nuts, but then I started to realise that they're both exceptional spellings.
> 
> If you don't happen to know, why wouldn't you pronounce _loose[/] the same way you pronounce choose and lose to rhyme with hose? Or, for that matter, with a soft 's' at the end like dose (unless you're Scottish and pronounce dose like
> doze)?
> ...





Well I think people spell lose loose and loose lose because they see others do it.(or to annoy on purpose)There is an obvious difference between win and lose or tight and loose.:


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

I found this on a website ( dictionary in fact ) - is it the only correct way to say this ....



> Hobson's Choice is somewhat different *from *a Catch-22 situation, ....




question:- is it ok to say "Hobson's Choice is somewhat different *to *a Catch-22 situation"?  

PS in my mind, it's the bludy same, people understand either, but sometimes some fussy people pretend they don't understand neither, but then some people REALLY don't understand nuffing , and the bloke down the road, he doesn't understand it either, or his sister neither, nor his mother either. 

and it's no different with all the other things that I used to fail English for at school


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> and it's no different with all the other things that I used to fail English for at school




Your math seems to be a success.Numbers or words?Have a look on any piece ( i before e except after c) of paper and they are there.

similar to?


different from?

Oh , and what is pi to 23000 decimal places again????


----------



## Mazrox (14 September 2007)

There's a great book out there called "Eats Shoots and Leaves" (or is that "Eats, Shoots and Leaves?") on punctuation. That comma thingy can sure make a big difference to how you read and understand a sentence!

I get frustrated with the education system too. My son is at a private high school and nearly every assignment they have given him this year has had a couple of grammatical errors and/or spelling errors - even to the point that it was difficult to work out what they actually wanted him to do at times!

I have a Primary School teacher mate who still corrects spelling - most don't these days. And the teachers coming through now in their 20s (or is that
20's?) are having trouble coming to grips with teaching grammar, because it just wasn't taught at all for about 15 years, and they missed out.

I agree that texting etc has made a difference to communication - although my older kids' spelling, grammar and writing generally (more than one kid!  ) have improved markedly since leaving school and working in the real world...

So there is hope!

Maz


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> similar to?
> different from?
> Oh , and what is pi to 23000 decimal places again????



you and that bludy idiot - what's his name ? savant? or something ?  https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=190250&highlight=savant#post190250

Here are some questions (I guess- of sorts), and my guess at the right answer:-
Imagine Noah talking to his crew ( missus and inlaws) , and you have to understand this is hypothetical so there MIGHT be just one sheep for example:-

A. Neither the sheep nor the cows were fed last night  (right) 
B. Neither the sheep nor the cow was fed last night  (right) 

C. Neither the cows nor the sheep were fed last night  (right, if 2 sheeps)
D. Neither the cows nor the sheep was fed last night (right , if 1 sheep)



> ok - parse / correct / whatever this one - hypothetical - there are three toilets on board - the one used by the men on board, the one used by the ladies on board, and the one used by the animals.  And a storm washes one overboard .  Noah's wife is trying to tell Noah she saw what happened  :-
> 
> E. Either the womens or the animals was washed overboard.
> F. Either the womens or the animals were washed overboard.
> ...




(heck if we've got time to sort out a sentence like that, we've got to get a new interest lol  - time to take up cards or gambling. 

J. Then again cards -  or gambling - is addictive
whereas
K. Gambling - or cards - are not addictive 
L. But neither cards nor gambling is cheap
and /or 
M. But neither gambling nor cards are cheap

? 
(ps bound to be errors here)


----------



## BIG BWACULL (14 September 2007)

The fat cat sat on the mat
And that was that fot that fat cat
as it ate so much shat(****) 
All it could do was sat(sit) on the mat
 Carry on


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

DIFFERENT ONE lol


> Suppose there are four toilets on board :-
> ok - parse / correct / whatever this one - hypothetical - there are *FOUR * toilets on board - the one used by the men on board, the one used by the ladies on board, and the *ones* used by the animals.  And a storm washes an *unknown number * overboard .  Noah's wife is trying to tell Noah she saw what happened  :-
> 
> P. Either the womens or the animals was washed overboard.
> ...



T. sorry both the missus and I am compulsively thinking like a square. 
  er whereas   
U. the dog and the kids are unpredictable , always thinking outside the square.  etc etc 
(ahh shuddup)

PS see if there is any serious error or any mistakes made - and how many?
PSS  see if there are any mistakes or a serious error made - and how many? 

PS leaving out commas is not a mistake for this one
that goes for apostrophes too, 
 although , lol I personally have no idea how many - nor the apostrophe's correct usage  (apostrophe"s correct usage?)



> how do you say the following for instance....
> the women's toilet
> or
> the animals' toilet
> ...



why didn't they make it easy 

ONE ANIMAL :- animal's toilet (or toilets)
TWO ANIMALS :- animal"s toilet(s) 
FIVE ANIMALS :- animal'''''s toilet(s) 
etc 

either the exclamation mark or the apostrophes were used incorrectly 
either the apostrophes or the exclamation mark was used incorrectly ?

etc etc ad nauseum lol


----------



## explod (14 September 2007)

BIG BWACULL said:


> The fat cat sat on the mat
> And that was that fot that fat cat
> as it ate so much shat(****)
> All it could do was sat(sit) on the mat
> Carry on




In postmodernity the paradynamic shift to philosophic............daaaaaaaaaaar spelling?????????????


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

> ..... , and you have to understand this is hypothetical so there MIGHT be just one sheep for example:-



"I saw the sheep's splash after falling overboard"
a) how many and who fell overboard ?

"I saw the sheeps' splash after falling overboard"
b) how many and who fell overboard ?


(PS, since you ask me to compare my maths and english grades at school whatever - 
tell you a story, Wys - I used to hate english - although I liked the English teacher, a novice girl first year outta teacher's college (teachers' college /  whatever ) - she just couldn't make it interesting .... 

then once - JUST ONCE - just for 5 minutes !! - our headmaster assisted her -  took the class - to make english COME ALIVE !!
he quoted some poetry !!!
and ever since I've loved the stuff 
(still almost failed english lol)


----------



## macca (14 September 2007)

Hi Number cruncher

Quote:

Once the Liberals get ousted and the education system gets fixed I think we may see improvement in about a decade 


In view of the fact that all public schools in Australia are run by the State Labor governments who have strenuosly denied any attempt to standardise or test the performance of schools, I seriously doubt it will improve any time soon.


----------



## Prospector (14 September 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Once the Liberals get ousted and the education system gets fixed I think we may see improvement in about a decade




You are joking, aren't you!

All we will get is a dumbing down!  The Teacher's Union here don't even want to do graded report cards!  They are even bucking doing A,B,C ratings in case a child's self-esteem is upset.  Yeah, right, far better for their self esteem if they get through their school life and realise they can't read, write or do maths as an adult, or are so far below their peers they are not competitive!


----------



## Bronte (14 September 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning. As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it



Great thread Joe


----------



## numbercruncher (14 September 2007)

Nope not Joking .....

A federal Labor Government will fix the problem that Johnny has let fester.




> It's time to take some serious action on education.
> 
> Let's get back to basics.
> Reading, writing and arithmetic are the fundamental building blocks of a good education. If you can't read, write or work out basic mathematical problems, you have little chance of taking part in school – or even carrying out everyday tasks with dignity and independence. Yet too many young Australians are falling behind in the basics. About one in five Year 7 students aren't up to scratch in mathematics and one in ten aren't meeting the benchmarks for reading and writing. The results are even worse for Indigenous children, with more than a third unable to read properly and more than half lagging behind in Maths. Collecting statistics, though, isn't enough. Labor believes we have to give students the practical help they need as they progress through school – we can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
> ...




www.kevin07.com.au/fresh-ideas/education-revolution/building-futures-101.html


And whats Johnnys plan I wonder ? ...... something along the lines of "If you can afford it your kids will get a great education"

Not a very good plan in my humble opinion.


Have a nice day


----------



## Happy (14 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> You are joking, aren't you!
> 
> All we will get is a dumbing down!  The Teacher's Union here don't even want to do graded report cards!  They are even bucking doing A,B,C ratings in case a child's self-esteem is upset.  Yeah, right, far better for their self esteem if they get through their school life and realise they can't read, write or do maths as an adult, or are so far below their peers they are not competitive!




We as humans are so bent on possibly uni plus MBA education for every child that this is not funny.

Many human beings will never be able to get to that level without teacher’s union who would advance everybody year after year, with only prerequisite to be present at school – uni from time to time.

As we grow different heights, sizes we grow to different physical and mental ability.

Above all children should be screened and put likes with the likes, so those who show talent in certain area are not dragged down by dumb majority.

Also, too many chiefs is not too good either, even for high intensity enterprise.


----------



## Prospector (14 September 2007)

I was thinking as I typed the post that people would think I was talking about Uni.  I wasn't.  I am talking about people who emerge from the education system being unable to read, and spell - not University texts but basic books; through either learning disabilities, lack of support etc etc that have not been picked up.

Also, it isn't Johhny's responsibility to fund State Education; it is the State's responsibility.  If our public schools are lacking funds, go complain to your State Government, not the amount that the Feds contribute.


----------



## ghotib (14 September 2007)

Well now let's see:



> The Teacher's Union here...




That's _Teachers' union here..._  (I checked their website and am pleased to report that they have their own name correct.)



> And whats Johnnys plan...




That's _what's_ [contraction] _Johnny's_ [possessive] _plan..._

Nit picking is much riskier than stock picking 

Ghoti


----------



## Buddy (14 September 2007)

So Prospector, is it one State, in which case it's (is it not, or is it its?) "State's"? Or is it plural as in all "States'".
This is a fun thread.  Subtle obfuscation.
P.S. has anyone or any won followed SEA (stock that is), noone or no one, or someone or some one? Who knows or no won/one nose/knows.


----------



## powerkoala (14 September 2007)

well, we are lucky, because we can use the grammar spelling checker on microsoft word to correct our mistakes.
so do we need to type on MSWORD and check them before post it in here? wow, sound cool 
if only stock picking would be this easy


----------



## Prospector (14 September 2007)

Buddy said:


> So Prospector, is it one State, in which case it's (is it not, or is it its?) "State's"? Or is it plural as in all "States'".
> This is a fun thread.  Subtle obfuscation.




Oh dear, I think it might be States'!  You see, that is why people do give up sometimes, because it all just gets too hard (from someone who studied English at Uni).  And I was trying so hard to get it all correct - so how can we expect people to get it right!


----------



## Happy (14 September 2007)

Apparently, at 15 – 16 years of age children have bit of the mess in their developing brains.
This is time when between other aspects, brain start to get ready to lead, to protect, to fight to make executive decisions.

This is famous time when some of young people start to feel the urge to change the world.

Often this time just manifests itself in the mood of being against everything and everybody, except of peers and sometimes tendency toward certain models, be it  -

Vegetarian - vegan, Greens movement, Graffiti phenomenon, general vandalism or specialised destruction like arson or stone throwing towards cars for example.

Trick is to steer young minds toward better targets, without them knowing of being manipulated in positive meaning of this word, for own their benefit later on.

Easier said than done, but if parent manages to become partner it is almost too easy.

Just realised I am off topic, but wouldn't like my thought to go to waste.


----------



## Buddy (14 September 2007)

OK Happy, since this is a thread about spelling and language, I think maybe you are giving us a hint about your ethnicity, or what your first language is.  Or are you just trying us on? I notice a distinct lack of "articles or determiners" in your sentence structure. Please take no offence at this as none is intended.  It gets back to what J.B. started off on - the way in which words are put together and sentences are structured can quite easily change the meaning of what one is attempting to say. And sometime it is impossible to understand what some sentences even mean.  All I am saying is that the use of articles, determiners and quantifiers have a strong influence in the english language and how it is interpretted. Have fun with them.


----------



## Julia (14 September 2007)

Buddy said:


> OK Happy, since this is a thread about spelling and language, I think maybe you are giving us a hint about your ethnicity, or what your first language is.  Or are you just trying us on? I notice a distinct lack of "articles or determiners" in your sentence structure. Please take no offence at this as none is intended.  It gets back to what J.B. started off on - the way in which words are put together and sentences are structured can quite easily change the meaning of what one is attempting to say. And sometime it is impossible to understand what some sentences even mean.  All I am saying is that the use of articles, determiners and quantifiers have a strong influence in the english language and how it is interpretted. Have fun with them.




Buddy:

Sorry, just couldn't resist:  'interpreted' not 'interpretted'.  One of the few words which doesn't double the final consonant when placed into the past tense.

Soon we will have to change the title of this thread to 'For Pedants and Nitpickers'.  Fun, though.


----------



## Julia (14 September 2007)

What is wrong with the following sentence (courtesy the Whittaker McNaught Bulletin)?

Broadly, a Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) is a fund with less than five members.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> What is wrong with the following sentence (courtesy the Whittaker McNaught Bulletin)?
> 
> Broadly, a Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) is a fund with less than five members.




I think that they should say with a maximum of four members instead of less than five members.

Sort of like me asking you to pass me less than two apples instead of asking for an apple.

Thats my crazy opinion anyways


----------



## cmh888 (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> What is wrong with the following sentence (courtesy the Whittaker McNaught Bulletin)?
> 
> Broadly, a Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) is a fund with less than five members.




"Self Managed" should read "self*-*managed"?

"Broadly" should read "broadly speaking"?


----------



## Julia (14 September 2007)

You both could be correct in that your suggestions would be alternatives to what was actually written.

Still not picking up the actual error, however.  Keep trying.

If no one has it soon, I will give a clue.


----------



## cmh888 (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> What is wrong with the following sentence (courtesy the Whittaker McNaught Bulletin)?
> 
> Broadly, a Self Managed Superannuation Fund (SMSF) is a fund with less than five members.




Not sure, but I would have written ... 

Broadly speaking, a 'Self-Managed Superannuation Fund' (SMSF), is a fund with fewer than five members.

... or is the error in the definition?


----------



## wayneL (14 September 2007)

less ===>> fewer 

edit: You beat me to it cmh888.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> You both could be correct in that your suggestions would be alternatives to what was actually written.
> 
> Still not picking up the actual error, however.  Keep trying.
> 
> If no one has it soon, I will give a clue.



phew ahh
(snap wayne ) 
 we agree for once lol


----------



## Julia (14 September 2007)

Ah, well done, CMH/Wayne.  This misuse of less/fewer is one of my pet hates.
I'm really happy that you picked it up. Now, if only the journalists could get it right.......


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Ah, well done, CMH/Wayne.  This misuse of less/fewer is one of my pet hates.
> I'm really happy that you picked it up. Now, if only the journalists could get it right.......



hey Julia
I take it you have me on ignore


----------



## cmh888 (14 September 2007)

I agree that "less than" _sounds _clumsy, but is it technically an error? I always thought the two were interchangeable.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

well 
for all the talk of this or that annoying people, I really like "the trend!!"

like in the old days you had to address a letter 



> Mr. S. Tan
> 200 Broadway Av.
> WEST BEACH,   S.A.,     5024




These days they have the sense to simplify it, drop ALL punctuation marks  (let's think simple here - think esperanza maybe ?) 


> Mr S Tan
> 200 Broadway Av
> WEST BEACH SA     5024




http://www.auspost.com.au/BCP/0,1467,CH2092%7EMO19,00.html

http://www.esperanza.org/


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2007)

lol, 
 speaking of encouraging kids rather than "reading them the fine print" ....

my eldest came home from kindy (or 1st year whatever...

he had written a story ... "the piret got his big sord and stabd the bady" (something like that anyway - most of his stories involved pirates and baddies ) 
Anyway lol - As carefully as possible I said " great, m8,  but, well, piret should be "pirate" yes? ..."
he quickly interrupted "that's it dad!, I'm not gonna show you my 'tories if you're gonna be like that!"


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

only one of these s probably right ....

If you look at the moon tonight, you'll see a small sliver of "new moon"
let's say it is one fifteenth of the full circle of the moon.  Behind that there *are* one fifteenth of 15 million billion stars, or 1 million billion stars.

If you look at the moon tonight, you'll see a small sliver of "new moon"
let's say it is one fifteenth of the full circle of the moon.  Behind that there *is *one fifteenth of 15 million billion stars, or 1 million billion stars.


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2007)

cmh888 said:


> I agree that "less than" _sounds _clumsy, but is it technically an error? I always thought the two were interchangeable.



Discussion here: http://www.translationdirectory.com/article853.htm

Dotted around the forum is this phrase:

Gods' speed (which implies several Gods, otherwise it should be God's)

However it's actually "godspeed"


----------



## Sprinter79 (15 September 2007)

What actually ****s me the most is the Americanisation of the English language. 

And i also take exception to the remark that under 30s have poorer spelling : 

Being a former teacher, the push at the schools I taught at was to return to the ABC system, stuff the outcomes crap.  The kid's self esteem will be better off being challenged in a supportive environment, like a school, rather than in the work force.

Text messaging is partially to blame, but you only have 150 characters to get your message across in one message, or you have to spent an extra 25c (or whatever) for all those apostrophies (sp?). It's not laziness, it's being frugal haha. Let's blame Telstra!!!!


----------



## rederob (15 September 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Text messaging is partially to blame, but you only have 150 characters to get your message across in one message, or you have to spent an extra 25c (or whatever) for all those apostrophies (sp?). It's not laziness, it's being frugal haha. Let's blame Telstra!!!!



BOCTAAE

CMIW
@TEOTD PICNIC

SSEWBA
DBEYR
CRTLA
CNP

(FYE)


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> What actually ****s me the most is the Americanisation of the English language.
> 
> And i also take exception to the remark that under 30s have poorer spelling
> 
> ...






> it is not the fault of the teachers , that the youngsters are lousy at spelling
> its the fact that us modern creatares, are more into texting and telling
> there're not being lazy just frugal, (though they're 24/7 on the phone)
> blame the "backwardly mobile" and google, but leave the teachers alone
> ...




while I'm at it I used to know a bloke who could communicate for hours in German - with germans . he had a massive German vocab.  He explained to me once , he could care less about the "die der or das" part.   Apart from the fact that he made all the Germans in the room smile when he told a story - mainly at his incorrect sex of words - he could get the storyacross as well as the next german. : 2twocents

As for the Amicanisation of Australian English? - it's all going to *program *mate , lol - I think - but you'd better check with Johnny and George.   ( or is that programme ? ) 

PS If you give a paper these days - engineering in my case - my last paper for instance was on  "the life and times of a cast iron nut" ,  -  - but they tell you to use "program" in preference to "programme"
I almost took it up with my MP lol - whatever (I could care less really- let me rephrase that  


> - let em do their thing, *just as long as we keep our autonomy *).



I have a heap of American friends - but , like we both would toast over a beer...

 -whether discussing wine women song or spelling or grammatical exactness lol) ....  .

 :bier:  * VIVE LE DIFFERENCE*
"Vive la difference" whatever.


----------



## cmh888 (15 September 2007)

wayneL said:


> Discussion here: http://www.translationdirectory.com/article853.htm
> 
> Dotted around the forum is this phrase:
> 
> ...




Thanks WayneL. An interesting read - I didn't even know there was debate between the two! I suppose I do vary how I use the two though, so perhaps I am subconsciously aware of this rule and apply it without being aware that I am making a choice between the two.

Re. The God thing ... The two words have different meanings.

God's speed is a reference to God moving quickly. It is a measure of time. For example "God's speed was 12km over the legal limit".

Gods' speed would suggest that a speed measurement had been taken for a group of Gods (either as a team in a running race, or perhaps as an average derived from individual scores).

Godspeed is something you would say when you are wishing someone safety and good fortune on their journey.

I hope someone wishes me Godspeed this morning. I am going grocery shopping and Coles is a battleground on a Saturday morning!


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

This is only relevant to thread if I repeat that we should be proud of our language - and be tolerant of the Yanks I guess, lol 
The more they appear different to us - the better it will be for us, !!! lol

That goes for our wine too. 
I have a magic friend (and his wife - she's a friend too lol) - American, still living there - getting on now - aren't we all - who might even read this one day lol - and his favourite saying was " in life, drink the best wine first" 

http://mybluetooth.blogspot.com/2006/11/bordeaux-or-merlot-viva-le-difference.html

VIVE LE DIFFERENCE to our wine
VIVE LE DIFFERENCE to pizzazz
and to "co-education" till we're 90! 
and to Bordeaux or Merlot and Shiraz

forget what the wine ad says 
"drink good wine !!  - or die of thirst !!" 
praps I'll keep the bad wine for "bad days"
but ...
I'll drink the best wine first. 

Let's toast to a wine to behold en 
to a life on earth unrehearsed..:alcohol:
Yes a wise man and friend once told me 
"son, drink the best wine first".


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

cmh888 said:


> God's speed is a reference to God moving quickly. It is a measure of time. For example "God's speed was 12km over the legal limit".




lol - love it hahahhhaaaheeehaa
so who was holding the radar ?  lol

I think your second application "godspeed" was the more normal usage, lol - but I'm sure that was the point you were making - just that it's humourous to say it dryly 
(humorous as the Yanks would say - lo - There's room enough for us all to enjoy "American *humor*" - as well as "Australian *humour*", surely

It's like...
sometimes you have to get the meaning of a sentence, not from the punctuation, which might infact be incorect, but from the logic of the words used. 

 for instance..
"I'm going to go see my brother about arranging our dad's funeral.  And after I see him, I'm going to go and bury his old clothes"
if you get my ghist


----------



## Prospector (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Anyway lol - As carefully as possible I said " great, m8,  but, well, piret should be "pirate" yes? ..."
> he quickly interrupted "that's it dad!, I'm not gonna show you my 'tories if you're gonna be like that!"




My almost 18 year old says the same kind of thing!  (not about spelling though, thankgoodness)   - or should that be Thank God!


----------



## cmh888 (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - love it hahahhhaaaheeehaa
> so who was holding the radar ?  lol




I neglected to mention that my husband thinks he is God.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

CMH - God for a husband? lol - good for you girl.
and Prospector - my teenagers tell me stories too - lol - like where they spent last night for instance 

BTW (skip this bit if you're easily bored), if I accidentally call any ladies "mate" - usually because nicknames like "CMH" and "Prospector" don't give away any sex  - hang on - start again...
I mean don't identify conclusively male or female 
(although Prospector, your avatar is a pretty good clue lol)
then ... getting back to what I was trying to say -
 I apologise.

Just pretend I'm one of those blokes who is brave enough to call a girl "mate" to her face - lol - and I can only do that with a beer or two on board.  I'm more likely to call a girl "sweetheart" - (in the plutonic sense)   - ok who cares what I call ladies lol - 

btw, back to your husband claiming to be God , CMH, 

see if he sets off a radar? -  gotta feeling if God can walk through walls, he would be immune from radar detection yes?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

Lol - reminds me
speaking of sentences that can come out wrong
lady Speaker of the House ( federal as I recall, might have been NSW, whatever) a few years back 

someone referred to her as "Sir" or something - then started to apologise - should have been Madam etc

and she replied
"that's ok - I don't have any sex in this position!"

lol - brought the house down  !!  they were still laughing when they rose for recess 3 days later (having done their usual 3 day's work)


----------



## Julia (15 September 2007)

cmh888 said:


> I agree that "less than" _sounds _clumsy, but is it technically an error? I always thought the two were interchangeable.




Subsequently clarified by link posted by Wayne - thanks, Wayne for that.
In the example from the Whittaker Bulletin the word 'members' made it pretty clear that 'fewer' would apply.


----------



## 123enen (15 September 2007)

They're know miss steaks in this cause we used special soft wear witch checks yore spelling.  It is mower or lass a weigh too verify.  How ever is can knot correct arrows inn punctuation ore usage:an it will not fined words witch are miss used butt spelled rite.  Four example; a paragraph could have mini flaws but wood bee past by the spell checker.  And it wont catch the sentence fragment which you. Their fore, the massage is that proofreading is knot eliminated, it is still berry muck reek wired.


----------



## 123enen (15 September 2007)

Eye halve a spelling chequer 
It came with my pea sea 
It plainly marques four my revue 
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. 

Eye strike a key and type a word 
And weight four it two say 
Weather eye am wrong oar write 
It shows me strait a weigh. 

As soon as a mist ache is maid 
It nose bee fore two long 
And eye can put the error rite 
Its rarely ever wrong. 

Eye have run this poem threw it 
I am shore your pleased two no 
Its letter perfect in it's weigh 
My chequer tolled me sew.


----------



## rederob (15 September 2007)

321nene
Snot boa tree
Wash en yule sea

Eye kame
Eyesore
Eye conk herd

Knot bard?

Won't two reed sum ore?

Know?

Oh Kay.


----------



## noirua (15 September 2007)

Should a preposition be used at the end of a paragraph?


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> BTW (skip this bit if you're easily bored), if I accidentally call any ladies "mate" - usually because nicknames like "CMH" and "Prospector" don't give away any sex  - hang on - start again...
> I mean don't identify conclusively male or female
> (although Prospector, your avatar is a pretty good clue lol)
> then ... getting back to what I was trying to say -
> ...



speaking of finding a female version of the word "mate" - giving an aussie girl / lady a friendly "generalised nickname" in a group or 1-on-1 conversation , "shiela" is a bit errr - rural lol

of course "mate" is still used by some, irrespective of gender of the addressee - heck, there's a bloke down at the pub "mates" with ladies all the time - even in public - like even standing at the bar.! 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_vocabulary  Australian English and several British English dialects (eg. Cockney; Scouse; Geordie) *use the word mate to mean a close friend of the same gender (or sometimes a platonic friend of the opposite sex), *rather than the conventional meaning of "a spouse", although this usage has also become common in some other varieties of English.
> 
> The origins of other terms are not as clear, or are disputed. Dinkum or fair dinkum means "true", "the truth", "speaking the truth", and related meanings, depending on context and inflection. It is often claimed that dinkum was derived from the Cantonese (or Hokkien) ding kam, meaning "top gold", during the Australian goldrushes of the 1850s. This, however, is chronologically improbable since dinkum is first recorded in the 1890s. Scholars give greater credence to the notion that it originated with a now-extinct dialect word from the East Midlands in England, where dinkum (or dincum) meant "hard work" or "fair work", which was also the original meaning in Australian English.[1] The derivation dinky-di means a 'true' or devoted Australian. The words dinkum or dinky-di and phrases like true blue are widely purported to be typical Australian sayings, however these sayings are more commonly used in jest or parody rather than as an authentic way of speaking.
> 
> Similarly, g'day, a stereotypical Australian greeting, is no longer synonymous with "good day" in other varieties of English (it can be used at night time) and is never used as an expression for "farewell", as "good day" is in other countries.




maybe blokes are "true blue dinky-di mates" , whereas girls are ??
"true pink dinky-di mates" ??


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

noirua said:


> Should a preposition be used at the end of a paragraph?



noi 
I believe I heard Jo once remark that 
"these sorts of questions are the sorts of questions up with which I will not put."

howdy 123- 
SPELLCHECKER ! bludy spell checker - sheesh - 
I sent a business letter a year or so back - important client 
 was trying to say that "in the event of the value having to be negotiated, I believe that we should be able to amicably agree to something "*pro-rata-ed*".

I sent the letter on without realising that spellchecker had changed it to "*procreated*"


----------



## noirua (15 September 2007)

Hi 2020, I believe the word "mate" came from Greece and was a term used by the Spartans.


----------



## rederob (15 September 2007)

noirua said:


> Should a preposition be used at the end of a paragraph?




It depends what the sentence is about.
In some sentences prepositions are absent.
Although one ended the sentence above.
I don't know what that's due to.
Maybe there are other conventions they are in accordance with.


----------



## noirua (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> noi
> I believe I heard Jo once remark that
> "these sorts of questions are the sorts of questions up with which I will not put."




Hi again 2020, I did say preposition and not proposition. I noticed Winston Churchill got very upset when they were used at the end of a paragraph.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 September 2007)

noirua said:


> Hi again 2020, I did say preposition and not proposition. I noticed Winston Churchill got very upset when they were used at the end of a paragraph.



ahhh - winston churchill, Jo,  what's the difference?


----------



## noirua (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ahhh - winston churchill, Jo,  what's the difference?




It is all about being served "Ham and Eggs".  The chicken is involved, however, the pig is committed.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 September 2007)

*cuttlefish*

I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread ... there's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Though on the upside if ever the republicans get their way at least I'll know the correct way to refer to my fellow people


----------



## cmh888 (15 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> if he sets off a radar? -  gotta feeling if God can walk through walls, he would be immune from radar detection yes?




One would think so wouldn't one.

Fine print ... he thinks he is God. Little does he realise that God is actually a woman, and he is married to her! Hehe


----------



## Julia (15 September 2007)

noirua said:


> Should a preposition be used at the end of a paragraph?




Any particular reason you have asked this question re a paragraph and not just a sentence?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 September 2007)

The title suggests lessons in *spelling* and *grammar*

The former changes gradually over time. I used have a problem with american spelling but no longer do. Or do no longer, than I did. The uneducated, those unfortunate enough to not have access to good schooling or those unable to master through some inherited language disorder such as dyslexia, help drive these changes. 

Humungus , I believe is now a recognised word, which developed in the 70's and 80's by those with "poor" language appreciation, or perhaps "good", depending on how puritan one is. Another that comes to mind is "hypo" , as in he had some ice and went hypo, or my son has adhd and goes hypo. This was a transfixion of the word "hyper" which to the uncouth ear sounded the same. 

I use the word uncouth as being the opposite of couth which has died out in the UK but is still used by older Queenslanders, to mean proper and correct.  

Good grammar is a skill acquired usually through dedicated teaching of that discipline. 

English is such a beautiful language with so many nuances in each sentence, phrase and word, that change is inevitable. 

Change is good, it can be grating, but its good and natural and normal, and is what makes English, with all respects to Kev07 such a masterful tongue.

Garpal


----------



## rederob (15 September 2007)

Garpal
No fewer than Five errors, Julia!
Both spelling and grammar.
Do take care.

ps. very soon there will be more English speakers in China than in any other nation, so your respects (sic) for Kev07 (can I assume you are referring to him speaking a Chinese dialect)  is noted


----------



## noirua (16 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Any particular reason you have asked this question re a paragraph and not just a sentence?




Hi, Because, Winston Churchill was known to blow his top when someone put a preposition at the end of a paragraph. Unfortunately, he didn't say why.

I believe a preposition may and in some case must, be used at the end of an informal sentence, however, never at the end of a formal sentence or in a formal letter.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2007)

Winston Churchill:-
please explain in 10 words or fewer
with what you’d tackle this conundrum
It’s important your English be pure
you must look at your words and wonder em.

The Transition Period :-
please explain in 10 words or a few less
what you’d tackle this conundrum with
and one cluemore:- don’t you be clueless
and just don’t go taking the pith

Modern Reality:-
please explain in 10 words or less
what you’d tackle this conundrum with
I could care less if you are careless
perfect English is an urban myth


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2007)

GEORGE W BUSH (after a closed conference meeting with Pauline H):-
please explain in 10 words or whatever with
now what was my name again
what we’ll win this noble endeavour with
if you work out how – please please explain


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2007)

noirua said:


> I believe a preposition may and in some case must, be used at the end of an informal sentence.



noi...
I believe a preposition may, and in *some cases *must, be used at the end of an informal sentence
I believe a preposition may, and in *one case *must, be used at the end of an informal sentence

I believe a preposition may, and *in occasional cases *must, be used at the end of an informal sentence
I believe a preposition may, and *in that rare occasional case *must, be used at the end of an informal sentence (??)


hell where does it end this stuff lol

(PS you were probably right XXX correct
above, and I'm probly 
wrong XXX incorrect to 
correct XXX right 
you - do I look worried ? 

and / or XX nor you?
and nor should we be worried )


----------



## noirua (16 September 2007)

2020, wars have been fought on less, but never a preposition. So I send to you this explanation of a preposition in a form of a truce. :

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/preposit.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2007)

noi,  I agree with the introduction of the classification "formal" and "informal" sentences / English btw.  

PS My wife used to do some proof checking of (for?) a magazine.  She's more inclined to add a heap of commas and other punctuation (punctuations?) - I'm much slacker. 

But with time the magazines have adopted a policy of fewer and fewer ( less and less?) commas in an article - If you read the average modern mag you'll see what I mean.  
personally I suspect it's all driven by a need to cram into those "column inches" etc



noirua said:


> 2020, wars have been fought on less, but never a preposition. So I send to you this explanation of a preposition in a form of a truce.



ripper I'll read that .
 - am I allowed to read it in "no mans land"?  (that stretch between the opposing trenches )?

- just the light is better there - and hence more enlightening 

what you’d tackle this conundrum with (preposition?)
with what you’d tackle this conundrum 

the better to read with (preposition?)
the better to with read?
the better with which to read 



> and lik lik redpela hat tol long wilddog granma
> "my what bigpela eyes, granma-belong-me"
> 
> den wilddog he tok sayim
> *"all the better with which to read", *lik lik pikinini belong me


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

This is my plea for those members who say "should of" rather than "should have" to please stop doing this.  It's driving me nuts!
e.g. "He should of had the courage of his convictions."
Awful.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Humungus , I believe is now a recognised word, which developed in the 70's and 80's by those with "poor" language appreciation, or perhaps "good", depending on how puritan one is. Another that comes to mind is "hypo" , as in he had some ice and went hypo, or my son has adhd and goes hypo. This was a transfixion of the word "hyper" which to the uncouth ear sounded the same.
> 
> 
> Garpal



Hello Garpal,

Re "hypo", your explanation of this use might be correct, but I suspect a more likely derivation would be from the clinical term "hypomanic" where someone with e.g. bipolar disease would be having a wildly manic phase.
I don't know why the actual word "manic" is never used in such a setting, just "hypomania", suggesting a state somewhat below that of mania.


----------



## Snagglepuss (16 September 2007)

Here are a few mistakes which I see often in the press and on web sites:


The most annoying one, already noted above, is the addition of apostrophes in plurals. On trading websites you often see people writing "CFD's" when "CFDs" would be correct. Likewise, PCs, CDs, DVDs.
"Criteria" is plural, but many people use it when "criterion" is meant. You have one _criterion_, but two or more _criteria_.
Likewise, you have one _phenomenon_, but two or more _phenomena_.
Too many people write "to" when they mean "too", and vice versa.
"Should of" has just been noted by Julia, above.
The expression "one fell swoop" is often mistakenly written "one fowl swoop".
Traders often "pore over charts", but they rarely "pour over charts".
What is wrong with this quotation from today's _Investor_ lift-out in _The Age_ - "None of the CFD providers have been tested in a big market correction."? Answer: The word "none" is singular, so the sentence should read "None of the CFD providers _has_ been tested in a big market correction." This is a very common mistake.
"One choice" - In the movie version of _The Lord Of The Rings_ Gandalf says, after becoming trapped in the Mines of Moria, "We have but one choice". However, if only one course of action is available, then you actually have _no choice_.
I'm sure I have many more pet peeves lurking in the recesses of my brain, I'll add them as I think of them.

- Snaggle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> 1. Traders often "pore over charts", but they rarely "pour over charts".
> 2. "One choice" - In the movie version of _The Lord Of The Rings_ Gandalf says, after becoming trapped in the Mines of Moria, *"We have but one choice".* However, if only one course of action is available, then you actually have no choice





1. snaggle - thanks never realised that "pore" was wrong and i'm the richer for your having pointed it out.

maybe ...
" traders are often "poor over charts?" lol

2. not sure I agree - "We have but one choice" means to me (or could mean) "We have but one choice (that makes sense)".

I mean, consider the (legitimate IMO) sentence... 
"we have no choice in the matter, the only thing that makes sense is to go forward".   
and you would (presumably) have a problem that a choice suddenly emerged when there was "no choice WHATSOEVER (implied)".

surely this could mean "there are a number of choices, forward , backward, standing still, going sideways etc , .... BUT the only choice that makes sense is to go forward."

Sorry m8 - I'm just responding to the pedant vs pedant challenge lol.


----------



## Julia (16 September 2007)

Ah Snaggle, a fellow pedant/purist!  If only your excellent examples would be taken to heart, even just on this forum.


----------



## Prospector (16 September 2007)

Should of instead of should have  - a pet peeve of mine too!

How about ATM machine and PIN number?


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2007)

Hello garpal ,




Garpal Gumnut said:


> Good grammar is a skill acquired usually through dedicated teaching of that discipline.
> 
> *Yes , this is true.Lack of willing listeners and learners is a problem.*
> 
> ...




Good day garpal.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> "One choice" - In the movie version of _The Lord Of The Rings_ Gandalf says, after becoming trapped in the Mines of Moria,
> 
> *"We have but one choice"*.
> 
> However, if only one course of action is available, then you actually have _no choice_.



Snaggle I'm gonna challenge you on how you would have said that better.
although I suspect you're just making an interesting observation - and/ or just stirring the pot here 

and obviously the "old world" language of Gandalf lends itself to Tolkien and/or middle English phraseology and stuff. 

and surely you wouldn't want Tolkien to change one single word of the Hobbit for instance..  (c'mon - brilliant prose, surely, beautiful words ) 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit * The novel draws on Tolkien's knowledge of historical languages and early European texts — many names and words derived from Norse mythology,* it makes use of Anglo-Saxon runes, and is filled with information on calendars and moon phases, detailed geographical descriptions that fit well with the accompanying maps — *attention to detail *that would also be seen in Tolkien's later work.
> 
> [edit] Plot summary
> A hobbit named Bilbo Baggins is smoking outside his comfortable hole when Gandalf the Wizard passes by, seeking an adventurer. The mere thought of an adventure flusters Bilbo into inviting Gandalf to tea the next day, and escaping into his hole. An amused Gandalf scratches a mark on Bilbo's door, indicating 'Burglar seeks employment'. The next day, Thorin Oakenshield and twelve other dwarves show up at the hole, along with Gandalf, and begin discussing their planned treasure hunt: A map is produced which shows the Lonely Mountain (Erebor); once ruled by Thorin's grandfather, it was seized by the dragon Smaug. The map shows a secret door into the mountain, which the dwarves hope to use to reclaim their home and is why the expedition needs a burglar. At first Bilbo wants nothing to do with the scheme, but in a moment of anger commits to joining




personally I have no problem with that sentence (as per an earlier post back there - the adjoining post to yours I believe ..)
(** abutting, adjacent, approximal, bordering on, connecting, contiguous, impinging, interconnecting, juxtaposed, near, neighboring, next door, touching, verging etc)

I wonder how well it translates into Chinese for instance lol. 


> The Hobbit has been translated into many languages. Known languages, with the first date of publishing, are:
> 
> Breton .
> Bulgarian
> ...




Try Gollum's typical phrases lol :-



> "Thief! Thief, Baggins! We hates it, we hates it, we hates it forever!"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hello garpal ,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dear Wysiwg,

I take it that James Joyce, if he were alive, would be in strife. 

Garpal


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Dear Wysiwg,
> 
> I take it that James Joyce, if he were alive, would be in strife.
> 
> Garpal




Garpal
I see James Joyce was born the year 1882 in Ireland and died the year 1941 in Switzerland.Wik. says he was considered one of the most influential writers of last century.Mainly writing fictional stories using the settings from his experiences,he created a series "The Dubliners".The final story in the series being "The Dead" which was made into a film.

So I suppose he was clever with word arrangement to enthrall (please greatly,hold spellbound lol) the many readers of which you are obviously one.I wonder how he would fare in present time with people having a very different state of mind?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Garpal
> I see James Joyce was born the year 1882 in Ireland and died the year 1941 in Switzerland.Wik. says he was considered one of the most influential writers of last century.Mainly writing fictional stories using the settings from his experiences,he created a series "The Dubliners".The final story in the series being "The Dead" which was made into a film.
> 
> So I suppose he was clever with word arrangement to enthrall (please greatly,hold spellbound lol) the many readers of which you are obviously one.I wonder how he would fare in present time with people having a very different state of mind?




Dear Wysiwg,

His last work was a great read, called Finnegan's Wake. 

I'd suggest that if you want to get an idea of what I meant , only if you are inclined, you start your reading of Joyce with FW and work backwards to his earlier works.

Garpal


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2007)

1. We will get rain soon. I know it will.
2. He turned his back on her.

3a. It sure is cold in here
3b. It surely is cold in here.

4a. In this class everyone performs at his or her fitness level
4b. In this class everyone performs at some fitness level

5a. Fred looks like he's happy
5b. Fred looks as if he's happy

6a. The man that accused my brother of murder is a doctor.
6b. The man who accused my brother of murder is a doctor.

difference between which and that
7a. He chose the kind of wine which suited him. 
7b. He chose the kind of wine that suited him.

8a. He chose a wine, which he then drank at dinner
8b. He chose a wine, that he then drank at dinner



> the book goes on ...
> Read these two sentences (8a and 8b) aloud. Does the second one grate on you a little bit?
> This is because it is new. This is the growing usage of "that" instead of "which" in the USA, and to a smaller extent among writers in other English speaking countries.



lol I'd have said "amongst" - ahh whatever 

9a. If I was a millionaire, I'd buy a vineyard.
9b. If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a vineyard.
which is right and why ? 
the book says its about " the mood  of a verb "


----------



## Snagglepuss (17 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> How about ATM machine and PIN number?




Excellent, Prospector! I have never thought about those before ... It's always good to have something new to be pedantic about.  (Or, should I say, "about which to be pedantic"?)

Cheers, Snaggle.


----------



## Snagglepuss (17 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. snaggle - thanks never realised that "pore" was wrong and i'm the richer for your having pointed it out.




Sorry, 2020, I wasn't very clear. "Pore over charts" is correct. But most of the time posters seem to write "pour over charts", which is incorrect. That was my point.

Regards, Snaggle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 September 2007)

here's one I sure didnt know ( just found it in this book here)..
Compound Adjectives

10a. The heavy hearted young man turned away from his fiance and boarded the warship.
10b. The heavy-hearted young man turned away from his fiance and boarded the warship.

11a. The fat lazy dog jumped over the quick brown fox. 
11b. The fat-lazy dog jumped over the quick-brown fox. 

the reason 10b needs hyphenated "compound adjective" is that it needs both adjectives to make one idea, i.e. you cannot say - in this context - "the heavy young man" ; or the "hearted young man". 
makes sense I guess.  

(Same reasoning, 11a is right and 11b wrong)

Does it matter if you say "no-one" or "no one"?  This book suggests not just be consistent in one document 
likewise "alright" ands "all right" 

PS Snaggle - yep - my dyslexia strikes again or just my pore english to blame   - I meant, I never realised pore was RIGHT>


----------



## Julia (18 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 9a. If I was a millionaire, I'd buy a vineyard.
> 9b. If I were a millionaire, I'd buy a vineyard.
> which is right and why ?
> the book says its about " the mood  of a verb "




I don't know about 'mood' but the 'were' is used when conveying a hypothetical situation, e.g. assuming you are not a millionaire, you are unlikely to be buying a vineyard.

e.g. further:  someone who can't sing might say: " If I were a wonderful singer, then I could star in an opera".


----------



## Snagglepuss (18 September 2007)

Reading another thread, I've just been reminded of another mistake commonly seen on forums (fora?) such as this, namely, the incorrect use of "company's" (possessive) and "companies" (plural). For example, this is wrong:



> It depends on the companies goals.




- Snaggle.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> Reading another thread, I've just been reminded of another mistake commonly seen on forums (fora?) such as this, namely, the incorrect use of "company's" (possessive) and "companies" (plural). For example, this is wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> - Snaggle.




Where it could be ... depends on the company goals or depends on the goals of companies.


----------



## Happy (18 September 2007)

I would like to see more uniformity in English language.
By the way, French could do with some simplification too and German and many other languages.

All verbs to make past tense and past participle with –ed like put, puted
All plural nouns with –s  or -es
All adjectives –er , -est, like happy, or happyer and happyest

Ridiculous proposal, but few changes were made in the past and new generations do not even blink learning current rules, except for general whinge, that things are bit tough.

Maybe it was important in the past, but lets look into future.
For modern Australian it is not as important how the word was created back in 10-th century in England.

Kids could also concentrate on more important issues.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 September 2007)

Julia said:


> I don't know about 'mood' but the 'were' is used when conveying a hypothetical situation, e.g. assuming you are not a millionaire, you are unlikely to be buying a vineyard.
> 
> e.g. further:  someone who can't sing might say: " If I were a wonderful singer, then I could star in an opera".



yep
subjunctive mood apparently 
as for other moods of verbs - (something I'd personally never heard of )... this website backs it up 

apparently verbs come in several shapes and sizes and stuff:-

VOICE:-
active
passive voice

MOODS
Indicative, 
Imperative, and 
Subjunctive Mood

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_vmood.html
Verbs - Voice and Mood
Brought to you by the Purdue University Online Writing Lab. 

Active and Passive voice:


> Verbs in the active voice show the subject acting. Verbs in the passive voice show something else acting on the subject. Most writers consider the active voice more forceful and tend to stay away from passives unless they really need them.
> 
> ACTIVE: Tim killed the chicken hawk.
> PASSIVE: The chicken hawk was killed by Tim.



Indicative, Imperative, and Subjunctive Mood:


> Most verbs we use are in the* indicative *mood, which indicates something:
> Examples:
> 
> He was here.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 September 2007)

"be that as it may"  ("that be as it may" ; "that being as it may" etc)
is / are also subjunctive apparently...



> The subjunctive mood is used to extress a doubt or a wish or a supposition - something not put forward as a fact.  Words like "if, unless may, might" usually indicate the presence of this doubt.
> 
> In the subjunctive mood the form of the verb changes in many cases.
> 
> ...



and you wonder why people say that English difficult to learn 

I wonder if Espiranza has an "optional subjunctive mood" for instance. 

I guess it's if it is correct to say "be that as it may be"
and I wonder which is correct 
"If you were I"
or 
"If you were me" - ahh what the heck 
(were it not for the fact that I have to do earn some crust, I'd search it out - it can stay a mystery for now). 

"should I be found innocent..."  subjunctive ? looks like it on first glance


----------



## krisbarry (19 September 2007)

Sorry but this thread is a complete waste of time, the english language/grammar and spelling has gone to the dogs anyway.  

Globalisation and technology have changed the way we spell and talk forever.

Time we all get over the old sckool ways and get with the times.

wats up tonite?

cya l8ter

lol


----------



## noirua (19 September 2007)

I think this is an excellent thread and we can all learn a great deal from it. Even Joe Blow mentioned, in an earlier post, that he'd learned something from another poster.


----------



## 123enen (19 September 2007)

Julia said:


> e.g. further:  someone who can't sing might say: " If I were a wonderful singer, then I could star in an opera".




I understood that "were" is used for plural and "was" is used for singular.
i.e I was  /  We were


----------



## Julia (19 September 2007)

123enen said:


> I understood that "were" is used for plural and "was" is used for singular.
> i.e I was  /  We were




Yes, 123enen, that's correct - when you are using the "active voice".
Google "active and passive voice" for details.

In your example above, you are stating a fact, "I was out last night".
In the subjunctive which is what was being used in my example and as I said in explanation, the verb (were) is denoting a hypothetical rather than an actual example, e.g. "If I were a millionaire I would buy a vineyard".  The "if" at the start of the sentence gives you a good clue that it's a hypothetical situation and therefore the subjunctive "were" is used.

Sorry, it's quite difficult to explain briefly.  If you Google active/passive voice, and subjunctive you will find heaps of detail.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Sorry but this thread is a complete waste of time, the english language/grammar and spelling has gone to the dogs anyway.
> 
> Globalisation and technology have changed the way we spell and talk forever.
> 
> ...




Sorry Stop

I picked up a misspelling

Its cya l8ta
not cya l8ter

Garpal


----------



## ghotib (19 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> "One choice" - In the movie version of _The Lord Of The Rings_ Gandalf says, after becoming trapped in the Mines of Moria, "We have but one choice". However, if only one course of action is available, then you actually have _no choice_.
> I'm sure I have many more pet peeves lurking in the recesses of my brain, I'll add them as I think of them.
> 
> - Snaggle.



Can you remember more precisely where this line comes? I'd bet London to a brick it's not in the book, especially considering that after the Fellowship retreats from Caradhras, before they enter Moria, Gandalf says, "We have no choice but to go on." Tolkein's dialogue clunks sometimes, but a grammatical or, as in this case, a logical solecism seems unlikely and I surely wouldn't have cared to challenge him  

Ghoti


----------



## Snagglepuss (19 September 2007)

ghotib said:


> Can you remember more precisely where this line comes? I'd bet London to a brick it's not in the book, especially considering that after the Fellowship retreats from Caradhras, before they enter Moria, Gandalf says, "We have no choice but to go on." Tolkein's dialogue clunks sometimes, but a grammatical or, as in this case, a logical solecism seems unlikely and I surely wouldn't have cared to challenge him



This line comes immediately after the party is trapped in the Mines Of Moria, after the Watcher in the Water collapses the entrance around them. It's from the movie, and doesn't appear in the book (I just checked).

Interestingly, earlier in the movie at the Council of Elrond, Elrond also says "We have but one choice. The ring must be destroyed."

And I've never heard the expression "I'd bet London to a brick ..." before. Any idea where that comes from?

Cheers, Snaggle.


----------



## Judd (19 September 2007)

Stop_the_clock said:


> Sorry but this thread is a complete waste of time, the english language/grammar and spelling has gone to the dogs anyway.
> 
> Globalisation and technology have changed the way we spell and talk forever.
> 
> ...




That's Ok STC.  We know that you have for others the empathy of a dead rabbit and a soul equivalent in size to a pin-head.  Just don't bother reading the thread if it annoys you.  Allow others to enjoy their interests while you just go and wallow in the current size of your superannuation fund.


----------



## rederob (19 September 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry Stop
> 
> I picked up a misspelling
> 
> ...



Garpal
I can see you have some trouble here from time to time.
Both spellings are text correct, although the preference is for "l8r" as it is the shortest option; latA and l8er are other choices.
AMF


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> And I've never heard the expression "I'd bet London to a brick ..." before. Any idea where that comes from?
> 
> Cheers, Snaggle.



My wife's family has used this expression forever. They are British-Kenyan and so add: "I'd bet London to a brick and Mobasa to a melon". 

I'd wager it has Cockney origins.


----------



## Prospector (19 September 2007)

"bet London to a brick" is a statement about betting odds in which a person is so certain of the outcome that they are willing to bet London to win a brick.


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2007)

Prospector said:


> "bet London to a brick" is a statement about betting odds in which a person is so certain of the outcome that they are willing to bet London to win a brick.



It also seems to be Aussie in origin from what I can find on Google. Hmmmm


----------



## Julia (19 September 2007)

Judd said:


> That's Ok STC.  We know that you have for others the empathy of a dead rabbit and a soul equivalent in size to a pin-head.  Just don't bother reading the thread if it annoys you.  Allow others to enjoy their interests while you just go and wallow in the current size of your superannuation fund.




So well said, Judd.

I will stand up and fight for the preservation of our language and really hate the current trend towards extending text messaging into ordinary communications.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who has read books just for the beauty and elegance of the language.  Words help us to communicate with empathy and clarity.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 September 2007)

> bet london to a brick



"bet a motsa to a molehill"?  whatever - 

The Readers Digest  (Reader's Digest?  Readers' Digest?) used to have a page "towards more picturesque speech" -  and I personally think that all that subjunctive stuff sounds ok.  (as long as it's manageable for students learning English - like , just a couple of exceptions to the rule to learn . eg "be that as it may", "were I you". )


like
"be that as it may, were I you, I'd stick with the Australian dictionary rather than modernise to the American dictionary"

versus the (hypothetical) trend ....

"whether that is or isn't so, if I was you, I'd stick with the Australian dictionary rather than modernise to the American dictionary"

btw all languages have their quirks - cantonese "I'm sorry" , = "Doi m'jer" , translates literally as "next (to you I should be) dead" - I mean , that's pretty sorry - and in it's own way , pretty picturesque


----------



## Judd (20 September 2007)

Recent reports on the wireless in connection with the little girl "Pumpkin" state that "Police are investigating a suspected murder case."  I believe it should be "Police are investigating a case of suspected murder."


----------



## Prospector (20 September 2007)

Judd said:


> Recent reports on the wireless in connection with the little girl "Pumpkin" state that "Police are investigating a suspected murder case."  I believe it should be "Police are investigating a case of suspected murder."




Well, given they waited four freaking days to open the car boot, knowing the mum was missing, I dont think they have done either!  She may have been alive all the time they were waiting for the warrant.

I know, :topic  but give me a window and I will jump through it!


----------



## Julia (22 September 2007)

The following is from Crikey.com, reporting on something written by a contributor.  What is wrong with it?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. What's a pseudo-ersatz?
Jeff Sparrow writes:

There’s something weird happening when John Howard accuses Kevin Rudd of holding a "pseudo-American, pseudo-ersatz" campaign launch .


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Julia said:


> There’s something weird happening when John Howard accuses Kevin Rudd of holding a "pseudo-American, pseudo-ersatz" campaign launch .



I'm guessing that you're saying that pseudo and ersatz are similar in meaning, in same way that it is probably frowned on to double up.   The likes of "sham-imitation" is "arguably-contestable" etc
or "bogus-phoney" etc or "false fake" etc . 

but just a guess .  



> Ersatz is a German word literally meaning substitute or replacement. Although it is used as an adjective in English, Ersatz can function in German only as a noun on its own, or as a part in compound nouns such as Ersatzteile (spare parts) or Ersatzspieler (substitute player). While the English term often implies that the substitution is of unsatisfactory or inferior quality, this connotation does not necessarily exist in the German context. For example, "Ersatzbutter" or "Butter-Ersatz" could be used as a generic term for margarine as a substitute for butter


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> btw all languages have their quirks - cantonese "I'm sorry" , = "Doi m'jer" , translates literally as "next (to you I should be) dead" - I mean , that's pretty sorry - and in it's own way , pretty picturesque




Mind you, Aussies have some picturesque expressions ... eg "your blood's worth bottling"  

I lived in HK for a few  years, and started to get adventurous translating into Cantonese.   So I learnt the translated version of that phrase.   So time came to pay someone the ultimate Aussie compliment - the superlative version of the expression "thanks",  and I said this to him in Cantonese - his smile was replaced by a strange quizzical expression, and he said , in challenging fashion ....
"what!!? you want to kill me and put my blood in a bottle??"

so I stuck to a simple "thanks" after that 
sometimes picturesque language misses something in the translation. 

PS The many choices of English words for any meaning surely have more subtlety of meaning than a language like say Espiranto yes?  Although Espiranto has noble origins.

btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
Esperanto (the word) means "one who hopes" 


> Esperanto (help·info) is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language. The name derives from Doktoro Esperanto, the pseudonym under which L. L. Zamenhof first published the Unua Libro in 1887. *The word itself means 'one who hopes'. Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding*.
> 
> Although no country has adopted the language officially, it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers. By some estimates, there are about a thousand native speakers.[2]
> 
> Today, Esperanto is employed in world travel, correspondence, cultural exchange, conventions, literature, language instruction, television (Internacia Televido) and radio broadcasting.[citation needed] Some state education systems offer elective courses in Esperanto[citation needed], and in one university instruction is in the language (see Akademio Internacia de la Sciencoj San Marino). There is evidence that learning Esperanto is a useful preparation for later language learning (see Propaedeutic value of Esperanto for more details).




And even in German there are far far fewer words in their dictionary than we have in English.  Less subtlety of meaning available you would think (?).   But Germans still love their language - love their poetry etc.    My guess is that Espiranto would be no different.  (?)


----------



## Julia (23 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm guessing that you're saying that pseudo and ersatz are similar in meaning, in same way that it is probably frowned on to double up.   The likes of "sham-imitation" is "arguably-contestable" etc
> or "bogus-phoney" etc or "false fake" etc .
> 
> but just a guess .




Exactly right, 2020.  Thanks for picking it up.  Tautology.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Exactly right, 2020.  Thanks for picking it up.  Tautology.




at 3am the light was on, speech writer at his seat,
the pollies speech, half spin half con, was almost half complete .
"tautology!!", - ah damn the rules , heck no one these days heeds it
"I'll double up on those voting fools" - as he opens the thesaurus - and reads it 

these days of e-thesauruses...

by which I mean he copies and pastes
and the speech is filled fast as he feeds it


----------



## rederob (23 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Exactly right, 2020.  Thanks for picking it up.  Tautology.



Julia.
Did you actually hear what Howard said?
What is written above is not the way it was spoken.
Howard intended that Rudd's launch was described as "pretentious" (for pseudo), and a "poor imitation" (for ersatz) of the American campaign style. 
We know this because his sentence went on... "complete with teleprompters, rear mirrors...", in describing the pretence.
My suspicion is that this line was not crafted by Howard, but instead by one of his slightly too clever spin doctors, who did not account for the stupidity of some journalists with poor vocabularies.
Correctly written it looks like *pseudo-American, pseudo, ersatz launch of the campaign*.
Context is important.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Tautology.



see AGIN we find an interesting topic !! 
for those who are easily enthused lol

Two meanings (redundant speesh , and logic implications) :-



> Tautology can refer to:
> 
> Tautology (logic), a statement of propositional logic which can be inferred from any proposition whatsoever
> Tautology (rhetoric), use of redundant language that adds no information






> Tautology (logic)
> In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a sentence that is true in every valuation (also called interpretation) of its propositional variables, independent of the truth values assigned to these variables. For example,  is a tautology, because any valuation either makes A and B both true, or makes one or the other false. According to Kleene (1967, p. 12), the term was introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein (1921).
> 
> The negation of a tautology is a contradiction, a sentence that is false regardless of the truth values of its propositional variables, and the negation of a contradiction is a tautology. A sentence that is neither a tautology nor a contradiction is logically contingent. Such a sentence can be made either true or false by choosing an appropriate interpretation of its propositional variables.



etc ... it goes on ( not that this paragraph has EVER been understood by anyone who ever read this corner of Wiki lol) i.e. don't lose any sweat over this one - I think it's been posted onto Wiki as a pisstake 



> Tautology and its application in Logic Synthesis
> In Logic Synthesis tautology plays an important role especially for Logic Optimization. Though the problem is intractable, whether or not a function is a tautology can be efficiently answered using the Recursive Paradigm. Any binary-valued function F is a tautology if and only if its cofactors with respect to any variable and its complement are both tautologies. Hence it can be easily concluded whether or not a function F is reducible to a tautology by recursive Shannon Expansion and the application of the above theorem.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

the redundant overuse of excessive words  
I didn't realise that "Mississippi River" or "Sahara Desert" are arguably examples of (multilingual) tautology .

They get pretty picky yes?
"Thomas Edison first invented the telephone"
should read "Thomas Edison invented the telephone" - sheesh serious pedantry IMO

Although sometimes used for emphasis - sometimes tautology is just the bumbling of a nincompoop  

Tautology in popular culture


> United States President George W. Bush, before the Unity Journalists of Color convention on August 6, 2004, is quoted as saying (with regard to Native American tribes), "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a ”” you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." [1]






> The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution: In New York v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated, "The Tenth Amendment likewise limits the power of Congress, but this limit is not derived from the text of the Tenth Amendment itself, which, as we have discussed, is essentially a tautology." O'Connor reasoned that the Tenth Amendment simply reiterated what was already built into the structure of the Constitution generally: When the States consented to the Constitution they expressly delegated certain powers to the Federal government. Implicitly, what was not given was necessarily retained by the states.
> 
> Comedian Alan King used to tell this story: His lawyer asked him if he had ever drawn up a will. Alan said "No". The lawyer, in shock and horror, said, "If you died without a will, you would die intestate!" Alan looked up the word and found that it means "without a will". "In other words, if I die without a will, then I'll die without a will. This legal pearl cost me $500!"
> 
> ...



etc 







> [edit] Examples of tautology
> The British supermarket Tesco sells a brand of lemon thyme which it describes as having an "aromatic aroma". Non-cognate synonyms may also produce a tautology; "free gift" is tautologous because a gift, by definition, is something given without charge. Other examples of tautology include phrases such as "new innovation" and "tuna fish". The Yogi Berra-esque statement "If you don't get any better, you'll never improve" is another example. A very frequently used tautologous phrases are "PIN number"- the "N" stands for number and "MLB baseball" while "B" stands for baseball. A common phrase, such as "Thomas Edison first invented the telephone", is redundant, as there is no way in which someone could invent something a second time, so the "first" in that phrase is unnecessary.
> 
> The preceding sentence,
> ...


----------



## Julia (23 September 2007)

rederob said:


> Julia.
> Did you actually hear what Howard said?
> What is written above is not the way it was spoken.
> Howard intended that Rudd's launch was described as "pretentious" (for pseudo), and a "poor imitation" (for ersatz) of the American campaign style.
> ...



Hello Rob,

Thanks for that clarification.  Makes more sense but still sounds less than great imo.
All I had was what was quoted from Crikey.com and I just copied that so my apologies if I passed on something which caused confusion.

Btw, is "pretentious" an appropriate synonym for "pseudo"?


----------



## 123enen (23 September 2007)

To boldly split your infinitives like no one has split before.
Let's not cry over split infinitives!


----------



## rederob (23 September 2007)

Julia said:


> Btw, is "pretentious" an appropriate synonym for "pseudo"?



As pseudo was used in its adjectival form by Howard, it's a reasonable fit for the "imitative" (especially of something superior) definition.
Plus, in Australian vernacular we use the abbreviated *pseud *to denote something (and often someone - where I came from) as pretentious.
My point was more about a misinterpretation due to writing down what was heard without understanding the permutations of *pseudo*, its use in the vernacular, and how its conjuncion with ersatz rather than separation was not appropriate.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Antimetabole
I find that some of my favourite quotes fall int othis category 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimetabole


> In rhetoric, antimetabole is the repetition of words in successive clauses, but in reverse grammatical order (ex: "I know what I like, and like what I know"). It is similar to chiasmus although chiasmus does not use repetition of the same words or phrases
> 
> It is derived from the Greek anti ("against","in opposite direction") and metabole ("turning about").





*"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."* Winston Churchill, The Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House, November 10, 1942. 

Latin: The latinate expression of Parmenides philosophical thesis of immutability is rendered "Ex nihilo nihil fit" (from nothing nothing comes). 

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961. 

"Johnson having now explicitly avowed his opinion of Lord Chesterfield, did not refrain from expressing himself concerning that nobleman with pointed freedom: 'This man (said he) I thought had been a Lord among wits; but, I find, he is only a wit among Lords!' " James Boswell Life of Johnson 

"We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, the rock was landed on us." Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet, Washington Heights, NY, March 29, 1964. 

"I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent!" Dr. Seuss, Horton Hatches an Egg. 

To be kissed by a fool is stupid; To be fooled by a kiss is worse. Ambrose Redmoon. 

"Nice to see you, to see you nice" Bruce Forsyth 

"In America, you can always find a party. In Russia, the party finds you!" Yakov Smirnoff 

Many rhetorical figures in the writing of Karl Marx exhibit antimetabole or chiasmus. For example, his critique of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty titled The Poverty of Philosophy contains such an inversion by reference. Similarly, in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx wrote: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness". 

Dorothy Parker famously elided an antimetabole when she explained a tardy submission with "too fu-cking busy, and vice versa."


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Antimetabole
> I find that some of my favourite quotes fall into this category
> 
> *"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."* Winston Churchill, The Lord Mayor's Luncheon, Mansion House, November 10, 1942.




then again some of my least favourite quotes as well could be called Antimetaboles - like this one for instance .....

down under we call tasers “lightning bolts”
- try to scarpa through wattle – they’ll still you
its not the amps and its not the volts
*it's the kilowatts what’ll kill you*

PS 1 joule / sec = 1 watt


----------



## Snagglepuss (23 September 2007)

Pedants may enjoy the many examples of erroneous use of apostrophes at http://www.apostropheabuse.com/.

- Snaggle.


----------



## Snagglepuss (23 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Antimetabole
> I find that some of my favourite quotes fall int othis category



At school, one of my English teachers drummed into me that "quote" is a verb, while "quotation" is a noun. So one should really say "my favourite quotations ...". These days, however, common usage seems to overwhelmingly support "quote" as a noun, so maybe the distinction is overly pedantic?

- Snaggle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> At school, one of my English teachers drummed into me that "quote" is a verb, while "quotation" is a noun. So one should really say "my favourite quotations ...". These days, however, common usage seems to overwhelmingly support "quote" as a noun, so maybe the distinction is overly pedantic?
> 
> - Snaggle.



snaggle 
you're sure to be righter than me lol 
thanks 
I'll keep an eye on that next time I quotation something 
PS (happy hour comment )

PS 


> I used to be amp-i dextrous
> till I got this re-volt-ing charge
> I said "hey - just boys being boisterous”
> he said “hey – here’s a surge from the sarge”
> ...




ps "knows" used instead of "know" under poetic licence - means the same thing, and rhymes with "flows"


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

here's some more Antimetaboles (an-tee-meh-TA-boe-lees): 
(which I'd call a Figure of Speech BTW )
From Churchill to Kennedy to Bush 0they all slip em into their speeches as much as possible 



> Figure of emphasis in which the words in one phrase or clause are replicated, exactly or closely, in reverse grammatical order in the next phrase or clause; an inverted order of repeated words in adjacent phrases or clauses (A-B, B-A).



Example #1: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." -- Carl Sagan

Example #2: "Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men."  -- Luther, Ninety-Five Theses

Example #3: "We do not stop playing because we are old; we grow old because we stop playing." -- George Bernard Shaw

#4 "...that development, security, and human rights must go hand in hand; and that there can be no security without development and no development without security; and neither can be sustained in the longer term without it being rooted in the rule of law and respect for human rights. 
-- Kofi Annan, Final Address to the United Nations General Assembly

#5 "The poet only desires exaltation and expansion. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head -- and it is his head that splits."
-- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

#6 "But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we're armed because we mistrust each other." 
-- Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Brandenburg Gage

#7 "Jesus Christ came to pay a debt he did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay.'" 
-- Greg Laurie, Harvest Christian Fellowship

#8 "All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practice -- let us practice what we preach."
-- Winston Churchill, The Sinews of Peace

#9 "1999 and the illusion continues. In the name of freedom, many have used art as a means to destroy the human mind. As an excuse to continue we hear, "Art reflects society." In the name of recreation these people, in fact, are re-creating themselves in their own images; society then reflects art." 
-- Prince

#10 "Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."
-- George W. Bush, 9-20-01 Address to Congress and the Nation

#11 Harold Abrahams: "I don't run to take beatings! I run to win. If I can't win, I won't run." 
Sybil Gordon: "If you don't run, you can't win."
-- delivered by Ben Cross and Alice Krige (from the movie Chariots of Fire)

#12 "The world faces a very different Russia than it did in 1991. Like all countries, Russia also faces a very different world."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, Address to the Russian Duma

#13 "How about this one on the international front. I don't know if you saw this -- just a few weeks ago. The German Parliament passed legislation giving animals the same rights as humans. I can't resist the irony: A nation that once declared people animals now declares animals people ." 
-- Pastor Gary Brandenburg, 2003 sermon entitled 'Whirled Views' 

#14 "I, too, was born in the slum. But just because you're born in the slum does not mean the slum is born in you, and you can rise above it if your mind is made up." 
-- Jesse Jackson, 1984 Democratic National Convention Address

#15 "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." 
-- John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

#16 "In an age when both sides have come to possess enough nuclear power to destroy the human race several times over, the world of communism and the world of free choice have been caught up in a vicious circle of conflicting ideology and interest. Each increase of tension has produced an increase of arms; each increase of arms has produced an increase of tension."
-- John F. Kennedy, Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Address to the Nation

#17 "We say to our children 'Be like grownups.' But Jesus said to us grownups, 'Be like children.'" 
-- Billy Graham, Harvard University Address

#18 Alexa Woods: "Seven seasons on the ice and I've never seen a gun save someone's life." 
Adele Rousseau: "I don't plan on using it."
Alexa Woods: "Then why bring it?"
Adele Rousseau: "Same principle as a condom: I'd rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one."
-- delivered by Sana Lathan & Agathe De La Boulaye (from the movie Alien vs. Predator)

#19 IMF Contact: "And Mr. Hunt, the next time you go on holiday please be good enough to let us know where you're going."
Tape Message: "This message will self destruct in five seconds."
Ethan Hunt: "If I let you know where I'm going, then I won't be on holiday."
-- delivered by Anthony Hopkins and Tom Cruise (from the movie Mission Impossible 2)


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

ASF poetry thread #678 
is the aussie in the warzone? or the warzone in the man?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

more examples of antimetabole 

#20 When the going gets tough, the tough get going. 

#21 You can take the gorilla out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the gorilla. 

#22 Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful. ””Samuel Johnson, Rasselas 

#23 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! ””Isaiah 5:20 

#24 Political speeches remain one of the most frequent sources from which we glean antimetabole examples. Winston Churchill used them frequently. 
”Let us preach what we practice””Let us practice what we preach.” 

#25 President Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, used antimetabole often, as in this example:
“East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we’re armed because we mistrust each other.” 

#26 An antimetabole can also imply humor as it does in the quote attributed to Samuel Johnson in Boswell’s Life of Johnson:
“This man I thought had been a Lord among wits, but, I find, he is only a wit among Lords.”

#27 You can also find antimetabole in advertisements, as with this next advertisement for Starkist Tuna:
“Starkist doesn’t want tuna with good taste. It wants tuna that tastes good.” .

#28 In literature, antimetabole can become high-toned and steeped with meaning. Shakespeare’s lines from Twelfth Night are an excellent example:
”Virtue that transgressed is but patch’d with sin,
And sin that amends s but patch’d with virtue.”


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

Another figure of Speech
*chiasmus   *
ki-az'-mus  Gk. "a diagonal arrangement"  
(very slightly similar to but different from antimeTAbole)

Repetition of ideas in inverted order 
Repetition of grammatical structures in inverted order (not to be mistaken with antimetabole, in which identical words are repeated and inverted). 

Examples  


> *But O, what damned minutes tells he o'er
> Who dotes, yet doubts; suspects, yet strong loves*.
> —Shakespeare, Othello 3.3
> 
> The idea of affection occurs in "dotes" and "strongly loves"; the idea of doubting in "doubts" and "suspects". These two ideas occur in the quotation in an A B B A order, thus repeated and inverted





> *It is boring to eat; to sleep is fulfilling *
> 
> The pattern is present participle-infinitive; infinitive-present participle



I swear , lol - 
the older I get, and the more approximate my memory - the more befuddled I get, yet the more I appreciate Shakespeare


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

figures of speech
turns of phrase, schemes, tropes, ornaments, colors, flowers 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech


> Overview
> Like wildflower seeds tossed on fertile ground, the figures of speech, sometimes called the "flowers of rhetoric" (flores rhetoricae), have multiplied into a garden of enormous variety over time. As the right frame of this web resource illustrates, the number of figures of speech can seem quite imposing. And indeed, the number, names, and groupings of figures have been the most variable aspect of rhetoric over its history etc etc



.  
accumulation: Summarization of previous arguments in a forceful manner 
adnominatio: Repetition of a word with a change in letter or sound 
alliteration: A series of words that begin with the same letter or sound alike 
anacoluthon: A change in the syntax within a sentence 
anadiplosis: Repetition of a word at the end of a clause at the beginning of another 
anaphora: The repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning of successive clauses 
anastrophe: Inversion of the usual word order 
anticlimax: the arrangement of words in order of decreasing importance 
antimetabole: Repetition of words in successive clauses, in reverse order 
antistrophe: The repetition of the same word or phrase at the end of successive clauses 
antithesis: The juxtaposition of opposing or contrasting ideas 
aphorismus: statement that calls into question the definition of a word 
aposiopesis: Breaking off or pausing speech for dramatic or emotional effect 
apostrophe: Directing the attention away from the audience and to a personified abstraction 
apposition: The placing of two elements side by side, in which the second defines the first 
assonance: The repetition of vowel sounds, most commonly within a short passage of verse 
asteismus: Facetious or mocking answer that plays on a word 
asyndeton: Omission of conjunctions between related clauses 
cacophony: The juxtaposition of words producing a harsh sound 
classification (literature & grammar): linking a proper noun and a common noun with an article 
chiasmus: Reversal of grammatical structures in successive clauses 
climax: The arrangement of words in order of increasing importance 
consonance: The repetition of consonant sounds, most commonly within a short passage of verse 
Diorimazeau 
dystmesis: A synonym for tmesis 
ellipsis: Omission of words 
enallage: The substitution of forms that are grammatically different, but have the same meaning 
enthymeme: Informal method of presenting a syllogism 
epanalepsis: Repetition of the initial word or words of a clause or sentence at the end of the clause or sentence. 
epistrophe: The counterpart of anaphora 
euphony: The opposite of cacophony - i.e. pleasant sounding 
hendiadys: Use of two nouns to express an idea when the normal structure would be a noun and a modifier 
hendiatris: Use of three nouns to express one idea 
homographs: Words that are identical in spelling but different in origin and meaning 
homonyms: Words that are identical with each other in pronunciation and spelling, but differing in origin and meaning. 
homophones:Words that are identical with each other in pronunciation and spelling, but differing in origin and meaning. 
hypallage: Changing the order of words so that they are associated with words normally associated with others 
hyperbaton: Schemes featuring unusual or inverted word order 
isocolon: Use of parallel structures of the same length in successive clauses 
internal rhyme : Using two or more rhyming words in the same sentence 
kenning: A metonymic compound where the terms together form a sort of synecdoche 
[[non sequitur]]: a statement that bears no relationship to the context preceding 
merism: Referring to a whole by enumerating some of its parts 
paradiastole: Repetition of the disjunctive pair "neither" and "nor". 
parallelism: The use of similar structures in two or more clauses 
paraprosdokian: Unexpected ending or truncation of a clause 
parenthesis: Insertion of a clause or sentence in a place where it interrupts the natural flow of the sentence 
paroemion: A resolute alliteration in which every word in a sentence or phrase begins with the same letter 
parrhesia: Speaking openly or boldly, or apologizing for doing so (declaring to do so) 
perissologia: The fault of wordiness 
pleonasm: The use of superfluous or redundant words 
polyptoton: Repetition of words derived from the same root 
polysyndeton: Repetition of conjunctions 
pun: When a word or phrase is used in two different senses 
sibilance: Repetition of letter 's', it is a form of alliteration 
spoonerism: jumbling of the letters in words by a funny way 
synchysis: Interlocked word order 
synesis: An agreement of words according to the sense, and not the grammatical form 
synizesis: The pronunciation of two juxtaposed vowels or diphthongs as a single sound 
synonymia: The use of two or more synonyms in the same clause or sentence 
tautology: Redundancy due to superfluous qualification; saying the same thing twice 
tmesis: Division of the elements of a compound word


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 September 2007)

continuing ... 
cripes, by the time we investigate all these - ....  this thread could still be going in the next millenium !!! lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech

[edit] Tropes
Main article: Trope (linguistics)
allegory: An extended metaphor in which a story is told to illustrate an important attribute of the subject 
allusion: An indirect reference to another work of literature or art 
anacoenosis: Posing a question to an audience, often with the implication that it shares a common interest with the speaker 
antanaclasis: A form of pun in which a word is repeated in two different senses 
anthimeria: The substitution of one part of speech for another, often turning a noun into a verb 
antiphrasis: A word or words used contradictory to their usual meaning, often with irony 
antonomasia: The substitution of a phrase for a proper name or vice versa 
aphorism: A tersely phrased statement of a truth or opinion, an adage 
apophasis: Invoking an idea by denying its invocation 
aporia: Deliberating with oneself, often with the use of rhetorical questions 
apostrophe: Addressing a thing, an abstraction or a person not present 
archaism: Use of an obsolete, archaic, word(a word used in olden language, e.g. Shakespeare's language) 
auxesis: A form of hyperbole, in which a more important sounding word is used in place of a more descriptive term 
catachresis: A mixed metaphor (sometimes used by design and sometimes a rhetorical fault) 
circumlocution: "Talking around" a topic by substituting or adding words, as in euphemism or periphrasis 
commiseration: Evoking pity in the audience. 
correctio: Linguistic device used for correcting one's mistakes, a form of which is epanorthosis. 
denominatio: Another word for metonymy 
double negative: grammar error that can be used as an expression and it is the repetition of negative words 
epanorthosis: Immediate and emphatic self-correction, often following a slip of the tongue. 
erotema: Synonym for rhetorical question 
euphemism: Substitution of a less offensive or more agreeable term for another 
hermeneia: Repetition for the purpose of interpreting what has already been said 
hyperbole: Use of exaggerated terms for emphasis 
hypophora: Answering one's own rhetorical question at length 
hysteron proteron: Reversal of anticipated order of events 
innuendo: Having a hidden meaning in a sentence that makes sense whether it is detected or not 
invocation: An apostrophe to a god or muse 
irony: Use of word in a way that conveys a meaning opposite to its usual meaning 
litotes: Emphasizing the magnitude of a statement by denying its opposite 
malapropism: Using a word through confusion with a word that sounds similar 
meiosis: Use of understatement, usually to diminish the importance of something 
metalepsis: Referring to something through reference to another thing to which it is remotely related 
metaphor: An implied comparison of two unlike things 
metonymy: Substitution of a word to suggest what is really meant 
neologism: The use of a word or term that has recently been created, or has been in use for a short time. Opposite of archaism. 
onomatopoeia: Words that sound like their meaning 
oxymoron: Using two terms together, that normally contradict each other 
parable: An extended metaphor told as an anecdote to illustrate or teach a moral lesson 
paradox: Use of apparently contradictory ideas to point out some underlying truth 
parallel irony: conveys a meaning same in an expression 
paralipsis: Drawing attention to something while pretending to pass it over 
paronomasia: A form of pun, in which words similar in sound but with different meanings are used 
pathetic fallacy: Using a word that refers to a human action on something non-human 
periphrasis: Substitution of a word or phrase for a proper name 
personification/prosopopoeia/anthropomorphism: Attributing applying human qualities to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena 
praeteritio: Another word for paralipsis 
procatalepsis: Refuting anticipated objections as part of the main argument 
prolepsis: Another word for procatalepsis 
proslepsis: An extreme form of paralipsis in which the speaker provides great detail while feigning to pass over a topic 
proverb:A succinct or pithy expression of what is commonly observed and believed to be true. 
rhetorical question: Asking a question as a way of asserting something. Or asking a question not for the sake of getting an answer but for asserting something (or as for in a poem for creating a poetic effect). 
simile: An explicit comparison between two things 
syllepsis: A form of pun, in which a single word is used to modify two other words, with which it normally would have differing meanings 
syncatabasis ("condescension, accommodation"): adaptation of style to the level of the audience 
synecdoche: A form of metonymy, in which a part stands for the whole 
synesthesia: The description of one kind of sense impression by using words that normally describe another. 
transferred epithet: The placing of an adjective with what appears to be the incorrect noun 
truism: a self-evident statement 
tricolon diminuens: A combination of three elements, each decreasing in size 
tricolon crescens: A combination of three elements, each increasing in size 
zeugma: a figure of speech related to syllepsis, but different in that the word used as a modifier is not compatible with one of the two words it modifies 
zoomorphism: applying animal characteristics to humans or gods


----------



## ghotib (24 September 2007)

> "A common phrase, such as "Thomas Edison first invented the telephone", is redundant, as there is no way in which someone could invent something a second time, so the "first" in that phrase is unnecessary.", is tautological.



Oh really???

This is a nice example of the common tendency of language police to emphasise the use of logic at the expense of both common sense and linguistic subtlety. Of COURSE things can be invented more than once. I myself invented risotto, not knowing that it had been invented by other people centuries before I was born. 

Take another look at this so-called common phrase. If I were to slip into my grammatical nerd hat, I'd point out that it's a clause rather than a phrase (phrases don't have verbs), but that's the least of its problems. What about the facts? Wouldn't you expect the name Alexander Graham Bell to be in the place of Thomas Edison? I did. So I googled "edison telephone", and found this:

"Bell was undoubtedly the first inventor of the art of transmitting speech over an electric circuit, but, with his particular form of telephone, the field was circumscribed."

http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/hst/biography/Edison/chap36.html

The article is discussing Edison's role in the history of the telephone, and Bell is called the the "first inventor" because Edison invented a new, different, and ultimately superior, form of telephone. That's not redundancy. That's skilled use of the language.

Ghoti (in fighting mood)


----------



## ghotib (24 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> This line comes immediately after the party is trapped in the Mines Of Moria, after the Watcher in the Water collapses the entrance around them. It's from the movie, and doesn't appear in the book (I just checked).
> 
> Interestingly, earlier in the movie at the Council of Elrond, Elrond also says "We have but one choice. The ring must be destroyed."
> 
> ...



Just saw this. Earlier posters have supplied the meaning of London to a brick. It seems that Ken Howard - race caller - coined it, and it's cleverer than I'd ever realised; I've only just discovered that "brick" was a term for Ten pounds (money). I also didn't know that there's a response - bet you Paris to a peanut you didn't think of it 

Ghoti


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 September 2007)

ghotib said:


> 1. This is a nice example of the common tendency of language police to emphasise the use of logic at the expense of both common sense and linguistic subtlety. Of COURSE things can be invented more than once. I myself invented risotto, not knowing that it had been invented by other people centuries before I was born.
> 
> 2. Take another look at this so-called common phrase. If I were to slip into my grammatical nerd hat, I'd point out that it's a clause rather than a phrase (phrases don't have verbs), but that's the least of its problems.
> 
> ...



 lol , well - 
1. I invented risotto third then lol - just that some people call it other names.  Like "swill" for instance (a la Spook in Wizard of Id).  And I get nicknamed "Turnkey" whenever I cook lol. 

2 to 5.  moralless (moraless?) - 
more or less no argument from me on the rest - 
in fact I think I said so at the time....  


			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> They get pretty picky yes?
> "Thomas Edison first invented the telephone"
> should read "Thomas Edison invented the telephone" - sheesh serious pedantry IMO



I just wish NO-ONE invented the budy phone 
I'd be a significantly richer man 

It could stay one of those mysteries - until a generation or two when my grandkids were old enough to give my kids the bludy phone bills. 

2. possible exception of para /  clause / phrase 2 where you seem to have caught the bug as well lol.
have a good one 2020

PS FURTHERMORE , It should say 
Thomas Edison invented the bludy lightbulb! lol  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





PS thought for the day ... when Edison first invented the lightbulb - I wonder what appeared above his head??
what about when he made his previous invention? 

PS I used to say "it could remain one of those mysterious mysteries" btw  - that was last week.


----------



## Snagglepuss (24 September 2007)

This sentence on another forum tickled my fancy:

"My Ni stock is MCR, purchased for the poultry sum of 66c" 

- Snaggle.


----------



## rederob (24 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> This sentence on another forum tickled my fancy:
> 
> "My Ni stock is MCR, purchased for the poultry sum of 66c"
> 
> - Snaggle.



Snaggle
He wins the quinella - both homophonous and polysemous.
But only if we know he was referring to the amount as "chicken feed".
The homonymous purists have warned me not to award a trifecta.
Correct wait....      anyone?


----------



## wayneL (24 September 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> This sentence on another forum tickled my fancy:
> 
> "My Ni stock is MCR, purchased for the poultry sum of 66c"
> 
> - Snaggle.



I guess he bought it all in one *fowl* swoop as well. 

(Usually written as "foul", but of course we pedants know it is "fell". )


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 September 2007)

Wayne, just found some comments on google.. http://www.wordwizard.com/ch_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18009

"If a hawk gets a chicken in each claw, is that a two-fowl swoop?" 

good opportunity to define a few more figures of speech 

MALAPROPISM (If you don't know what you're doing when you say "fowl" or "foul" etc)... 


> Some folks just don’t know or misheard the original expression and we’ve got an example of a MALAPROPISM – “a ludicrous misuse of a word, especially by confusion with one of similar sound.”




PUN (If you do ) 


> Others clearly know what the original expression is and we’ve got a PUN – "an intentional play on words." The pun actually worked well in some of the examples I saw where it was made clear that the action taken was, indeed, ‘foul.’ I guess if I were using the pun, I would probably put ‘foul’ in quotes or italics.






> The original expression was AT ONE FELL SWOOP and the first use of the phrase in English appears to be in Macbeth where Shakespeare likens the murder of Macduff’s wife and children to a hawk swooping down on defenseless prey. Although ‘fell’ here meant ruthless, savage, fierce (also basis of the word ‘felon’), in the expression IN/AT ONE FELL SWOOP it now means sudden, and the entire idiom means all at once, in a single action, as in “The new law lifted all controls in one fell swoop.”




PS If someone accuses you of a malapropism - you look em in the eye and reply, "very punny"


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 September 2007)

was it slip of the tongue or a witticism?
who's the joke on ? and was it funny?
was it typo? maybe a malapropism?
or some "pony brain" being punny?

sorry think that should be "puny brain" cant remember


----------



## noirua (25 September 2007)

I did see a thread, on another website, where posts were written using the next letter in the alphabet.

ASF is a wonderful forum. = BTG jt b xpoefsgvm gpsvn. and then backwards = GTB tj b mvgsfeopx .nvspg 

At first I could not see the point in this thread. Maybe, you, like me, will work it out in the end - epph .ldvm


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 September 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> was it slip of the tongue or a witticism?
> who's the joke on ? and was it funny?
> was it typo? maybe a malapropism?
> or some "puny brain" being punny?



Is a meant-well wee drop :alcohol:
just a wee mental prop
(much like Mal must be propped when he's pissing)
Now is Mal a pisspot?
or is Mal a pissed prop?
or is Mal just a Mal-a-propped-prism? . 

PS Do I look like I care, can I bearishly bear
should I tear out my hair till I'm hairless
Do I care , more or less?
less like more 
more like less
yes I carelessly add I could care less.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 September 2007)

SEQUENCE OF WORDS...

Someone penned a quote once (forget where I found it) :-
"I'd prefer to be wisely worldly than to be worldly wise".

Presumably because the first option leaves the door open for pushing your luck 

But it makes you realise how easily the meaning of a sentence changes just because a couple of words are juggled  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=170339&highlight=burns#post170339


----------



## Snagglepuss (4 October 2007)

Some pretty poor grammar here from the "Green Guide" insert in _The Age_ newspaper (which should know better):



> Up-market routers that combine wireless with a broadband modem - so there's one fewer box on your desk, one fewer AC adaptor plugged into your wall and one fewer bit of hardware to go wrong - are sometimes called hubs ...




"One fewer box"?!

- Snaggle.


----------



## Judd (4 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> Some pretty poor grammar here from the "Green Guide" insert in _The Age_ newspaper (which should know better):
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Oh well, maybe less is more?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> Some pretty poor grammar here from the "Green Guide" insert in _The Age_ newspaper (which should know better):
> "One fewer box"?!   - Snaggle.



interesting one snaggle...
how about "one box fewer?" 

Snaggle - you'd also have to take it up with the washington post 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700644.html  What One Fewer Planet Means to Our Worldview

and freespace   http://freespace.virgin.net/seant.ellis/onefewer.htm "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in* one fewer god *than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."   -Stephen F. Roberts 


meanwhile...
http://www.seattle.gov/waytogo/onelesscar.htm  Take the One Less Car Challenge!

http://www.onelesstear.com/ One less tear 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4422/is_n11_v8/ai_11582809


> Make one fewer error - Wood on Words - Column
> Communication World,  Nov, 1991  by Alden S. Wood
> For those of us who write for a living, problems like the following are as common as the common cold, and just as annoying. Please read this lead datelined oakland, Calif.:
> 
> ...




PS which is correct ?
'Not many of these buildings are *fewer* than thirty years old.'
'Not many of these buildings are *less* than thirty years old.'?


> . I must note here that Ted went yet another step, adding, "The only other problem about fewer is to distinguish whether it is quantity or number that is being spoken of. For instance: 'Not many of these buildings are fewer than thirty years old.' The thought here is not of individual years but of a period of time; therefore, less."


----------



## Snagglepuss (4 October 2007)

Interesting quotations and links, 2020, thanks for those!

Cheers, Snaggle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> continuing ...
> cripes, by the time we investigate all these - ....  this thread could still be going in the next millenium !!! lol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
> 
> ...




Is it ok to say ....
"putting on your shoes and socks?"

or should you say 
"putting on your socks and shoes??" 

damned if I know - but I have found a big word that discusses this (and other red herrings lol)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteron-proteron


> Hysteron proteron
> 
> The hysteron proteron ("latter before") is a rhetorical device in which the first key word of the idea refers to something that happens temporally later than the second key word. *The goal is to call attention to the more important idea by placing it first.*
> 
> ...




after reading the next bit, try to guess what they'd call the movie "Momento"??!!
A zig-zag-hysteron-proteron ?? (who nose) 



> On a larger scale, the structure of the Odyssey also takes advantage of hysteron proteron strategies. The epic begins by narrating Telemachus' difficulties dealing with his mother's suitors and his search for information about his years-missing father, events that, temporally, occur nearly at the end of the overall sequence. When the poem introduces Odysseus, it does so after he has spent seven years in captivity on Calypso's island and is finally leaving; he builds a raft but is shipwrecked. He relates to his hosts, the Phaeacians, the adventures that brought him to this point, bringing the story up to his stay on Calpyso's island. The Phaeacians help him finish his voyage, and he returns to Ithaca where he meets up with Telemachus and, together, the two deal with the suitors, who were the poem's first main concern.
> In this way, the Odyssey's use of hysteron proteron shares elements with frame narratives, which remain a popular device today in movies and fiction.
> 
> Hysteron proteron, in addition to being a rhetorical device can be used generally to describe a situation that is the reverse of the natural or logical order. *"Putting the cart before the horse" and "topsy-turvydom" are examples/synonyms of hysteron proteron*.[1]


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2007)

Has anybody been watching "Adventures in English" on SBS? It chronicles the history and evolution of the English language since the arrival of Angles (the word from which the word "English" derives), Saxons and Jutes.

Basically, English is a Germanic language with Celtic grammar, and infusions from Old Norse, Latin and French.

Fascinating.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

Wayne - Adventures in English is bludy brilliant (IMO) !  



2020hindsight said:


> continuing ...
> cripes, by the time we investigate all these - ....  this thread could still be going in the next millenium !!! lol
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech
> 
> ...




Here's one that Wikipedia didn't mention (in that list at least) ... 
*double entendres *

Since it is the basis of almost all TV sitcoms, plus James Bond gags, plus Mae West, plus barroom jokes etcetc, might as wekk post a few examples ..



> Sir Les Patterson :-
> "The key to cardiovascular fitness is getting it up, and that applies to the heart rate as well!"   - (lots of double entendres in anything he says lol)




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre

 An unfortunate choice of phrase


> Paul Boateng lowers the tone of BBC1's serious political discussion program 'Question Time' with an accidental - and curiously prophetic - double entendre.
> 
> They were discussing an exchange of hostile words between UK Deputy PM John Prescott and French environment minister Dominique Voynet. Prescott had blamed the breakdown of talks at an environmental summit on Voynet, to which she responded that Prescott was behaving in an "inveterate macho" and "really pathetic, shabby" manner."




innuendo is something similar I guess 
also ambiguity



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre . A double entendre is a figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. *This can be as simple as a phrase which has two mutually exclusive meanings, and is thus a clever play on words*.
> 
> An example of this would be the title of the short story, "*The Most Dangerous Game*", by Richard Connell, in which the title can refer both to the "game" that is most dangerous to hunt, and "game" that is most dangerous to play.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

hell - without double entendre , it would be one boring world - especially for cartoonists


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 October 2007)

bloopers or just "funny"
but a good "double entendre" - can be hilarious 

  Big Breakfast Donna Air Says Something She Shouldn't


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

figures of speech .. continued..  

what's it called when we say "the White House said...", or
"the pen is mightier than the sword"  (??)

(google is mightier than the pen ?)

google reckons it's Metonymy.. (oops lol)

http://www.indopedia.org/Denominatio.html


> Metonymy
> 
> ( pl:metonimia)  In rhetoric and cognitive linguistics, metonymy is the use of a single characteristic to identify a more complex entity. It is also known as denominatio or pars pro toto (part for the whole).
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 October 2007)

Metonymy?

"Pilbara told Beijing that they were today, and to ignore Canberra because they were yesterday." (? - Metonymy x 4? I think lol)


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2007)

Here's a couple more I've spotted recently.

Mixing up floored and flawed: 

It's a flawed argument, not a floored argument. 

Mixing up sort and sought:

Something is highly sought after, not sort after; and she's a good sort, not a good sought.

...though a good sort is definitely sought after! 

Also, it's grammar, not grammer. 

Pedants rule, OK! :bonk:


----------



## sam76 (9 October 2007)

what about further and furthur?

that always gets me.


----------



## Pat (9 October 2007)

It's all in the fricken context! eh?
For one I am sick of spelling/grammar. I am from a spell check generation, so with no spell check Im stumped.
I'm in the lead to win a comp for a dog lead made of lead. That makes sense dont it?


----------



## sam76 (9 October 2007)

or what about then and than?


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> It's all in the fricken context! eh?
> For one I am sick of spelling/grammar. I am from a spell check generation, so with no spell check I*'*m stumped.
> I'm in the lead to win a comp for a dog lead made of lead. That makes sense dont it?




It's don*'*t.


----------



## Pat (9 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> It's don*'*t.



You mean doesn't :


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2007)

I often see ridiculous spelt as rediculous.


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> You mean doesn't :




Haha yes.


----------



## Pat (9 October 2007)

As long as the point gets across I think, in this new age or text msg'ing, stock forums and such, who knows what's write or rong? 
So many new fandangled gadgets with wierd schpelling like "ipod" and "wii"


----------



## Whiskers (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> It's all in the fricken context! eh?




I made a comment on another forum to a guy who was quite agressive and his 'fowl'  language.

He took even further offence, retorting... "I'm not a chook."


----------



## Joe Blow (9 October 2007)

sam76 said:


> what about further and furthur?
> 
> that always gets me.






sam76 said:


> or what about then and than?




One I notice a lot is when people write "I should of sold those shares" instead of "I should have sold those shares".

I also dislike it when people don't capitalise the first letter of every sentence. Isn't that right, Sam? :


----------



## Pat (9 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> I made a comment on another forum to a guy who was quite agressive and his 'fowl'  language.
> 
> He took even further offence, retorting... "I'm not a chook."



LOL!!! Are you suggesting my typing is somewhat foul?


----------



## imajica (9 October 2007)

I find the prevalent use of double negatives absolutely horrifying!  

for example - 'I didn't do nothing'
                   'I ain't sayin nothing'

nuff said (laughing derisively)

hehe


----------



## Whiskers (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> LOL!!! Are you suggesting my typing is somewhat foul?






> As long as the...



"right" 


> point gets across...


----------



## Whiskers (9 October 2007)

imajica said:


> I find the prevalent use of double negatives absolutely horrifying!
> 
> for example - 'I didn't do nothing'
> 'I ain't sayin nothing'
> ...




Yeah, me too. 

I wonder why it is so prevelant... particularly in rap culture?


----------



## wayneL (9 October 2007)

imajica said:


> *'*nuff said



I would have used the apostrophe.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

imajica said:


> ... double negatives ....
> 
> for example - 'I didn't do nothing'
> 'I ain't sayin nothing'



ima - I heard a semi serious theory today on a sorta related topic ...

In Australia, since 
a) we always say NO to referendums (referenda?) ..  
b) even when they make perfect sense - for instance only 33% said yes to the "recent" one that proposed compulsory 4 year term for fed govt - (and hence we continue to have 3 year terms)
c) but , lol, this bloke was quite sure he knew how to get such a referendum passed  ..... 

Do you want NOT to have 4 year terms ?   yes / no

majority (he predicted) would answer predictably " NO!"

meaning ? ahah 
No I do NOT want NOT to have 4 years terms
i.e. I want 4 year terms   (sorta lol)


----------



## YELNATS (9 October 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> One I notice a lot is when people write "I should of sold those shares" instead of "I should have sold those shares".




Indeed. Also, I note frequently the spelling confusion over the term "definitely". Often, we get instead "I defiantly should have sold those shares". Oh yes, no doubt in the face of being told to hang onto them?


----------



## YELNATS (9 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> I often see ridiculous spelt as rediculous.




On the subject of spelling clangers, last week I received a letter from a large government merchandise distributor, which read in part:

"... we will automatically send you last year's ... orders, split into two distributions to _coinside_ with the _peek_ sales periods" (my added italics).

And, some time ago on this very forum, a poster accused someone of being "buyest" ("biased", I guess). That one took some working out.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

again ( gee whiz this wiki is good 

ima ... 


> Pink Floyd[/B], sung by schoolchildren
> 
> *We don't need no education.
> We don't need no thought control*.



Many more songs there that use em (double negatives that is)   this one looks like a triple ( so I spose that's back to negative?)


> Another example from the song "A Horse with No Name" by America (band):
> *There ain't no one for to give you no pain*.



Then again - sometimes it's ok...


> Double negative resolving to a positive
> Main article: Litotes
> Example: *"There isn't a day when I don't think about her." *-- Prince William, speaking of his mother.




and what does this mean? (triple) lol


> *And don't nobody buy nothing*.




How about quadruples etc 


> Nobody (rerecorded by Johnny Cash) contains the notable chorus:
> *Well, I ain't never done nothing to nobody*.
> I ain't never got nothing from nobody, no time.
> And, until I get something from somebody sometime,
> I don't intend to do nothing for nobody, no time.[3]






> Double negative
> 
> A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence. In some languages (or varieties of a language) negative forms are consistently used throughout the sentence to express a single negation, *while in others a double negative is used to negate a negation and therefore resolves to a positive*. In the former case, *triple and quadruple negation can also be seen*, which leads to the terms multiple negation or negative concord.
> 
> ...




I must say, I've found that myself - legalese that takes forever to work out what the hell they are trying to say


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> It's all in the fricken context! eh?
> ...
> I'm in the lead to win a comp for a dog lead made of lead. That makes sense dont it?



Pat,  I met a bloke who gave me his business card "Lead Buyer" it said
so I quizzed him on what the price of lead was - 
and he looked at me as if I was crazy.

Like
"Lead Sinker"  vs  "Lead Singer"

or 
"Lead lead the metals during today's market". etc etc

"Lead lead the metals during the lead-in to today's market(??)"


----------



## Pat (9 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Pat,  I met a bloke who gave me his business card "Lead Buyer" it said
> so I quizzed him on what the price of lead was -
> and he looked at me as if I was crazy.
> 
> ...



Quirks I guess? God love it, but where's the logic?


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

Pat said:


> Quirks I guess? God love it, but where's the logic?



exactly  - along with the beauty of english in the many small variations of meaning that you can choose ( the ABC's Adventures in English is brilliant here) 

you also get these crazy and unnecessary (you'd think) ambiguities.  - which must make learning English a nightmare ( for people like eg - Sudanese refugees for instance ) 

I posted this back a few posts on this thread.  It is all about a ray of hope for sanity 
But I was amazed to see how few spoke it ...


> estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers






> PS The many choices of English words for any meaning surely have more subtlety of meaning than a language like say Esperanto yes? Although Esperanto has noble origins.
> 
> btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
> Esperanto (the word) means "one who hopes" .





> Quote:
> Esperanto (help·info) is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language. The name derives from Doktoro Esperanto, the pseudonym under which L. L. Zamenhof first published the Unua Libro in 1887. The word itself means 'one who hopes'. Zamenhof's goal was to create an easy and flexible language as a universal second language to foster peace and international understanding
> 
> Although no country has adopted the language officially, it has enjoyed continuous usage by a community estimated at between 100,000 and 2 million speakers. By some estimates, there are about a thousand native speakers.[2]
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

Speaking of double negatives.... this one has a test ( dead simple) 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/texttypes/negatives/quiz.shtml

But also includes the following interesting examples...

"there's nothing I can't learn"
'There's no-one I can't communicate well with.' 
'There's nowhere in Birmingham I wouldn't be prepared to work.'

They suggest that these could be made clearer, although I personally have no problem with this, and persaonally I would class them as legitimate "double negatives resolving to the positive in each case" (I think?)

They also mention trying to eliminate the word "got" 
'I have not got a driving licence'.
should be "I do not have a driving licence. "


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 October 2007)

there’s nowhere I won’t try to go
and no how do I not yearn for it
there’s no way I won’t try to grow
and there’s knowhow I want to learn for it


----------



## Whiskers (10 October 2007)

Have you noticed how some people seem to have a fixation on double negatives!? 

I read somewhere ages ago that it is a lot more difficult for the human brain to process double negative language, especially immature, still developing brains that have little or no concept of comprehension until about 3 yr old. 

The parent is going on in an angry voice to a 2 yr old like "Don't kick the ball inside the house." But the kid just wants to kick the ball and all he hears is people getting angry with him.   If the parent had said "Take the ball outside and kick the ball on the grass",  It would be a lot easier for the child to understand what the parent wanted. 

Can you imagine trying to train a dog to 'sit', buy saying "Don't stand" or 'come' by saying "Don't go over there." 

It particularly annoys me when these people then talk about disciplining their children and pets in terms of yelling at them and smacking etc,  for trying to do what they hear as opposed to what these people think they are trying to convey to them.


----------



## Whiskers (10 October 2007)

Oops, 'double negatives' should be "negative termonology".

This is what I meant to say.


Whiskers said:


> Have you noticed how some people seem to have a fixation on negative termonology!?
> 
> I read somewhere ages ago that it is a lot more difficult for the human brain to process negative termonology, especially immature, still developing brains that have little or no concept of comprehension until about 3 yr old.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Have you noticed how some people seem to have a fixation on negative termonology!?
> I read somewhere ages ago that it is a lot more difficult for the human brain to process double negative language, especially immature, still developing brains that have little or no concept of comprehension until about 3 yr old.




Yes ....i remember reading about this thought process many years ago.The mind doesn`t hear/comprehend the *don`t* and only the wording (kick the ball inside the house) being spoken.
It is a `hand me down` communication fault that is common in all of us.



Whiskers said:


> It particularly annoys me when these people then talk about disciplining their children and pets in terms of yelling at them and smacking etc,  for trying to do what they hear as opposed to what these people think they are trying to convey to them.




Again, this is a common communication fault perpetuated by many a parent.The mind is complex,yet basic in function at the same time.


p.s. termonology is agreed by many to be spelled terminology.

p.p.s. it takes awareness  that one is talking in the neg. to effect change to stating what the parent wants.The word don`t is an easy add on.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

Whiskers said:


> Can you imagine trying to train a dog to 'sit', buy saying "Don't stand" or 'come' by saying "Don't go over there."
> 
> It particularly annoys me when these people then talk about disciplining their children and pets



lol - brilliant example m8

this is off thread but..  vaguely relevant to your post ... 
then there was that parent (an old drinking mate .... of ... a friend mine ) 

went to his house and his kid is playing with truck - pretty much ignoring him - his little boy about 3 at the time - either intentionally or , as you say, just too young - 

anyway he would say

tommy stop playing with the truck (and go to bed or something) 
repeat 
repeat  (kid still dribbling "brrm brrm" while pushing the truck back and forward)

( this bloke was always humourous btw, lol - and it was never with yelling, 
- but after two or three attempts he'd say in an aside to the adult with him - who by now would be amused at the kid's obvious wish to become a truck driver ....

"Tommy stop playing with the truck this instant !!  or alternatively CONTINUE DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING (slightly louder, but still barely audible to the kid ) - but - WHATEVER YOU DO -  DON'T DEFY ME!!!"


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

speaking of inconsistent spelling of a word 
check out reference.com (and elsewhere) on the apparently interchangeable spelling of "alchohol" or "alcohol"
maybe they were drinking the profits when they posted that one

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Alchohol
speaking


----------



## Pat (10 October 2007)

My most stuffed up spelling is the word patients or patience....
How do you write a patient patient? Like that?


----------



## Julia (10 October 2007)

Pat said:


> My most stuffed up spelling is the word patients or patience....
> How do you write a patient patient? Like that?




Yes, Pat, assuming you are describing e.g. a person waiting to see a doctor who doesn't mind the doctor running two hours behind time.  In that case the first 'patient' is used as an adjective.  If you were wanting to describe the characteristic he is displaying by not getting anxious about the waiting time you would say he is displaying 'patience' (noun).
I'm now worried I might have confused you further????


----------



## Whiskers (10 October 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> p.s. termonology is agreed by many to be spelled terminology.




Agreed. 'Twas the hour of the night. 



> p.p.s. it takes awareness  that one is talking in the neg. to effect change to stating what the parent wants.The word don`t is an easy add on.




Indeed. Also what I find annoying and frustrating is when people also add in copious amounts of umm's and arr's, you know, and long pauses. 

It must be a nightmare for some young kids trying to understand what is being said sometimes.


----------



## Pat (10 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Yes, Pat, assuming you are describing e.g. a person waiting to see a doctor who doesn't mind the doctor running two hours behind time.  In that case the first 'patient' is used as an adjective.  If you were wanting to describe the characteristic he is displaying by not getting anxious about the waiting time you would say he is displaying 'patience' (noun).
> I'm now worried I might have confused you further????



Undersatnd, So a patient patient makes sense/cents  (meaning the spelling is correct, I understand the context...)


----------



## Joe Blow (10 October 2007)

Lets try a little punctuation, shall we?

Firstly, all sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. A full stop is also known as a 'period'.

I see this a lot:



> Fred went to the shop and bought some bread ,milk ,potatoes ,and a pack of cigarettes .




I have no idea why some choose to put a space before the commas and full stops in this way, but many do it. To my eye it looks absolutely horrible. 

This is how is should be:



> Fred went to the shop and bought some bread, milk, potatoes and a pack of cigarettes.




The same with quotation marks and parentheses:



> " Just quoting myself for later reference " ( and using parentheses to include an aside ) .




Again, don't include the extra spaces. It looks awful and makes it more difficult to read. Here is how it should look:



> "Just quoting myself for later reference" (and using parentheses to include an aside).


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Lets try a little punctuation, shall we?
> 
> Firstly, all sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. A full stop is also known as a 'period'.




The one that always gets me is when people use a full-stop at the end of an obvious question, instead of a question mark. It's a mistake I make from time to time and it annoys me even more when I do it and spot my own mistake.


----------



## moneymajix (10 October 2007)

Is there a perfectionist on the forum?


----------



## BIG BWACULL (10 October 2007)

moneymajix said:


> Is there a perfectionist on the forum?



What, did you call Me 
Or 
What did you call me ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Lets try a little punctuation, shall we?
> This is how is should be:
> Fred went to the shop and bought some bread, milk, potatoes and a pack of cigarettes.



Joe 
I think it should be:

Fred went to the shop and bought some bread, milk and potatoes, and decided to give the pack of cigarettes a bit miss!.

oops
or is that 
cigarettes a bit miss!  (?)


----------



## Joe Blow (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> The one that always gets me is when people use a full-stop at the end of an obvious question, instead of a question mark. It's a mistake I make from time to time and it annoys me even more when I do it and spot my own mistake.




I have done it myself too Wayne. Usually when I'm in a hurry. 

It is always a good policy to proofread your posts before submitting them. It has become standard practice for me and I find my posts have fewer errors as a result.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

Here's a punctuation question.

One thing I do remember hearing in English at school, (one of the few times I was actually listening) is that a comma should never precede the word "and".

e.g. I went to the pub, and proceeded to get as drunk as a skunk.

In the above example, the comma is obviously incorrect. However in some sentences, a comma seems to make sense before "and"*,* and I often insert the comma at that point, such as this sentence.

Is this incorrect?


----------



## moneymajix (10 October 2007)

Big

You are perfect.

Goes without saying.


:grinsking:


Even your imperfections are perfect.


----------



## Joe Blow (10 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Joe
> I think it should be:
> 
> Fred went to the shop and bought some bread, milk and potatoes, and decided to give the pack of cigarettes a bit miss*!.*
> ...




2020, you have brought up another one of my pet hates: those who use *both* an exclamation mark (or a question mark) *and* a full stop at the end of a sentence. 

I do not understand why people do this. A question mark or an exclamation mark takes the place of a full stop.


----------



## rederob (10 October 2007)

Wayne
Below is a good example of when a question is more a command, and should end in a period, not a question mark.







> Lets try a little punctuation, shall we?



Indeed, two errors in the quoted sentence.
Proof reading will only pick up what we know to be erroneous.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

rederob said:


> Wayne
> Below is a good example of when a question is more a command, and should end in a period, not a question mark.
> Indeed, two errors in the quoted sentence.
> Proof reading will only pick up what we know to be erroneous.



Do you think so?

The sentence invites others to participate in a discussion on punctuation. Surely  this warrants a question mark, in fact somebody would have certainly picked up the absence of the same.

No, I think the question mark is correct.


----------



## Joe Blow (10 October 2007)

I concede that the "Lets" in that sentence should have been "Let's" as in "Let us".

My mistake.


----------



## rub92me (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Here's a punctuation question.
> 
> One thing I do remember hearing in English at school, (one of the few times I was actually listening) is that a comma should never precede the word "and".
> 
> ...



If I remember correctly, the rule you are referring to is followed in 'American English' spelling, but not an offence in English spelling. I'm neither English nor American though, so I could be wrong.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

rub92me said:


> If I remember correctly, the rule you are referring to is followed in 'American English' spelling, but not an offence in English spelling. I'm neither English nor American though, so I could be wrong.



lol
As Homer Simpson would say - why would I want to learn English!!?   I'm not planning a trip to England!

btw imo, 
"Tom eats the hamburger and leaves in a hurry" means that Tom also enjoys some salad as dessert, possibly prone to indigestion as a result;

whereas
"Tom eats the hamburger, and leaves in a hurry " means that Tom deserted and doesn't stay around for dessert.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

rub92me said:


> If I remember correctly, the rule you are referring to is followed in 'American English' spelling, but not an offence in English spelling. I'm neither English nor American though, so I could be wrong.



That could be it, I was dragged up and put in a few appearance at school in the US, so that might explain it.

Cheers


----------



## Pat (10 October 2007)

To me punctuation is logical, however the spelling of some words is not. Like 2020's examples above.
Why do we have such pronunciations as 'ph' meaning 'f' and so on? 
Perhaps the slang of now days is language evolution?
Also I’ve learnt to cut and paste into MS word to help my spelling, but I come unstuck with some of the previous examples… patients/patience etc.


----------



## onemore (10 October 2007)

Joe Blow said:


> Proofread, proofread, proofread!




I do but when your a thickhead it doesn't help.
I never did like school


----------



## rederob (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Do you think so?
> 
> The sentence invites others to participate in a discussion on punctuation. Surely  this warrants a question mark, in fact somebody would have certainly picked up the absence of the same.
> 
> No, I think the question mark is correct.



So, there's no distinction between an invitation to participate (a courteous "command"), and an invitation to respond to a direct question? (?)
Shall we begin with some rules.
A direct question seeking a specific reply should end with a question mark.
A question mark in parenthesis can indicate uncertainty - as you know(?)
What about rhetorical questions, you ask.
Or about statements that that are disguised as questions?
Or about indirect questions?
Or, about the use of lower case first letters in words that immediately follow short, sequential questions?
Such as, which of the above sentences is correct? the first? the second? or both?
Shall we conclude with some rules?


----------



## Pat (10 October 2007)

rederob said:


> So, there's no distinction between an invitation to participate (a courteous "command"), and an invitation to respond to a direct question? (?)
> Shall we begin with some rules.
> A direct question seeking a specific reply should end with a question mark.
> A question mark in parenthesis can indicate uncertainty - as you know(?)
> ...



I thought a question mark just followed a question, it doesn't need to end the sentence. So lower case letters may follow a question mark. 
A rhetorical question is just a question with no answer expected.... still a question which a question mark (?) should follow. 

I wonder if the "rules" change for writing in 1st and 3rd person. Is there a 2nd person?


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

rederob said:


> So, there's no distinction between an invitation to participate (a courteous "command"), and an invitation to respond to a direct question? (?)
> Shall we begin with some rules.
> A direct question seeking a specific reply should end with a question mark.
> A question mark in parenthesis can indicate uncertainty - as you know(?)
> ...




I'm struggling to ascertain which rule you are alluding to, which disqualifies the sentence as a question and warranting a question mark.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

ok I've got a rhetorical question or two (dreamed / dreampt? up as I was driving home) 
a) should I use one or two question marks, (?)  (??)  and
b) how many times did he kiss her?

1. he kissed her left fair bosom, and right 
away he skipped into the night.

2.  he kissed her left fair bosom and right - 
away he skipped into the night

3. he kissed her left, he kissed her right
upon the nose, into the night

4. he kissed her left, he kissed her right, 
upon the nose, into the night.

ps .  he swore blood oath upon his sword
some would say he sweared, i would say he swored ! 

PS A cop pulled me over for driving erratically - I had to explain that I had just gone really close to missing a post 

PS there're these blokes in white coats coming up the driveway !
HEY !! - LEAVE ME BE!!!  -  OOOooofffff .......


----------



## rederob (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> I'm struggling to ascertain which rule you are alluding to, which disqualifies the sentence as a question and warranting a question mark.



I think that's an excellent reply.
If you (the second person) believe a question was asked, then a question mark can rightfully follow.
If I want to make a statement by asking a question, then ending with a period makes the point.
The decision to use or not use the question mark can change so much.
The question might be whether or not in was an intention or a mistake!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

that's what you think!
that's what you think?


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> that's what you think!
> that's what you think?



*T*hat's what you think!
*T*hat's what you think?

LOL


----------



## Pat (10 October 2007)

I'm confused. I think we need an ASFer with a degree in question marks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

here's a test - there are two questions

So how many questions marks? (,) or if you prefer, which is correct?:-

a) to be, or not to be?

b) to be?, or not to be?

c) to be, or not to be??


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> here's a test - there are two questions
> 
> So how many questions marks? (,) or if you prefer, which is correct?:-
> 
> ...




It's not really a sentence is it. **

The full sentence is: To be, or not to be, that is the question. That is a statement so a full stop is correct.

In fact in the actual discourse in _Hamlet_, it has a semi-colon. 

** Full stop or question mark?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

I think it should be :-

to be? or not to be? is that a question?
whether 'tis necessary in the mind 
to add a heap of question marks
or to take arms against a sea of pedants,
and by opposing , amend them? 

when painting a placard in backyards  
for APEC or those ones for "punk U8" 's
it's not so much commas on placards
it more bout the WORDS that you punctuate.

(sheesh they're getting cornier than Kansas in August  )

PS I suppose you're gonna expect me to concede that you're 100% right (?) 
(!)  
 Gordon Macrae


----------



## Julia (10 October 2007)

Pat said:


> Undersatnd, So a patient patient makes sense/cents  (meaning the spelling is correct, I understand the context...)




"makes sense" - yes.
"makes cents" - I hope you are kidding!


----------



## Julia (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> Here's a punctuation question.
> 
> One thing I do remember hearing in English at school, (one of the few times I was actually listening) is that a comma should never precede the word "and".
> 
> ...



Wayne, I remember learning the same thing.  Another allied rule was never to begin a sentence with a preposition.

However, I believe this has become somewhat more flexible these days and often in the interests of more adequately conveying meaning, or perhaps to convey additional stress of a particular point, we do see "And" beginning sentences.  I find myself using it.  

If we think about the concept in terms of how it sounds in conversation rather than how it looks when written, then perhaps that makes what I'm attempting to say more clear.  I'll attempt an example:

"We've had the most terrifying storm.  At first great jagged spears of lightning pierced the sky, followed by roll after roll of deafening thunder.  And then the rain began, drenching everything in moments."

From a purely grammatical point of view, the "And" at the start of the last sentence is incorrect.  But I think it adds meaning to conveying the violence of the storm.  Agree?  Disagree?

May I slip into this thread my irritation with the over-use of smilies?
(Now perhaps that should have not been a question mark in terms of the earlier discussion in that I'm not actually asking someone for the answer to this question given I am already expressing what I want to.  This is an archetypal rhetorical question.)
The occasional smilie is fun and makes a point.  But tossing them in after every few words is simply irritating and gives the impression that the writer is not confident enough about the content of what he/she is saying to allow it to stand alone.


----------



## Julia (10 October 2007)

Pat said:


> To me punctuation is logical, however the spelling of some words is not. Like 2020's examples above.
> Why do we have such pronunciations as 'ph' meaning 'f' and so on?
> Perhaps the slang of now days is language evolution?
> Also I’ve learnt to cut and paste into MS word to help my spelling, but I come unstuck with some of the previous examples… patients/patience etc.




You are right, Pat.  English is a difficult language to learn.  It hasn't helped that there have been so many changes in fashion regarding how to teach literacy in schools.  Many teachers in our public schools these days cannot spell and have a minimal understanding of grammar.  It's not their fault.
They were never properly taught.

My suggestion is to read, read, read.  We learn words and their spellings largely as a result of repeated recognition.  I doubt that you will find too many voracious readers who have any difficulty with spelling.

Please let's not give up and succumb to slang and abbreviated language.
Go and get the collected works of Oscar Wilde.  There you have clever use of language, along with much wisdom and wit.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Here's a punctuation question.
> e.g. I went to the pub, and proceeded to get as drunk as a skunk.
> Is this incorrect?






			
				Julia said:
			
		

> Wayne, I remember learning the same thing. Another allied rule was never to begin a sentence with a preposition.



not sure about either of these - but one thing I'm absolutely certain of - you shouldn't mix your met-her-fors.

I mean - I went to the pub once, and proceeded to get drunk, 

and then I began a sentence with a proposition - 

.....don't do it - you'll get a black eye for sure.


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2007)

Julia said:


> I'll attempt an example:
> 
> "We've had the most terrifying storm.  At first great jagged spears of lightning pierced the sky, followed by roll after roll of deafening thunder.  And then the rain began, drenching everything in moments."
> 
> From a purely grammatical point of view, the "And" at the start of the last sentence is incorrect.  But I think it adds meaning to conveying the violence of the storm.  Agree?  Disagree?



I do remember that one too. 

I often begin a sentence with "and" as well. As you say it is grammatically incorrect in strict formal English, but it seems to be common in conversational English. _And_ it seems to work just fine when writing in a conversational style.

As we all know, conversational English is far more dynamic and forgiving, and contains any number of hideous transgressions that would never make it to the written word.

I guess it depends whether writing a formal document, or waffling on message boards. 

Anyway, saw another beauty at a different forum tonight:



> I guess I just have to sit and weight for the slow hand of the law to help me.



Oops.


----------



## rederob (11 October 2007)

> I guess I just have to sit and weight for the slow hand of the law to help me.



The difference between being "heavied" and not verballed by the police?


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 October 2007)

> for the slow hand of the law to help me



apropos of nothing 
 Conway Twitty - Slow Hand (Live)


----------



## Pat (11 October 2007)

Julia said:


> You are right, Pat.  English is a difficult language to learn.  It hasn't helped that there have been so many changes in fashion regarding how to teach literacy in schools.  Many teachers in our public schools these days cannot spell and have a minimal understanding of grammar.  It's not their fault.
> They were never properly taught.
> 
> My suggestion is to read, read, read.  We learn words and their spellings largely as a result of repeated recognition.  I doubt that you will find too many voracious readers who have any difficulty with spelling.
> ...



I hear what you are saying. Reading has helped alot, especially with my vocabulary. However english and writing has always been a thorn in my side whilst at school, I'm more of a maths/science man.

I was kidding with the cents, just pointiing out more "quirks". Do you think we pronounce the 't' as opposed to the 's'?


----------



## noirua (11 October 2007)

Some use of English is a matter of opinion. Anyara-Aphorisms are infact one of them and many people hate them being used: http://koti.mbnet.fi/neptunia/creativity/english3.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 October 2007)

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2057211.htm "The President, of course, sees Mrs Bush as a tremendous asset and a very good spokesperson on some of these issues," Ms Perino said, adding that the couple is "united on this issue".



personally I'd have said the couple are united 

btw, as with all things, it pays to double Czech 


> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=304774
> Czech babies to return to 'real' family
> Nikola and Veronika both were born last December 9, delighting two sets of parents who brought home what they thought were their bundles of joy.
> 
> ...



bit like Danny Devito and Schwartzy 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2007)

What's the longest word in the English language?

It used to be "antidisestablishmentarianism", but the word is basically defunct these days, and I seem to recall that there is a longer one now.

Anyone know it?

<Edit> Too easy... Wikipedia knows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_word_in_English

The longest non-technical word is "Floccinaucinihilipilification".


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> What's the longest word in the English language?
> 
> It used to be "antidisestablishmentarianism", but the word is basically defunct these days, and I seem to recall that there is a longer one now.
> 
> ...




According to Merriam-Webster .... The longest word that you'll find in our Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, is *pneumonoultramicro-scopicsilicovolcanoconiosis*, which has 45 letters and which is a disease of the lungs caused by inhaling very fine irritant particles.

It is easier to pronounce too.


----------



## Julia (11 October 2007)

An extract from today's "Crikey.com":

Warwick Sauer writes: Re. "Crikey Policy Comparison Part 8: death penalty" (yesterday, item 13). Crikey wrote: "Kevin Rudd wrapped McClelland’s knuckles..." Exactly what did Kevin Rudd "wrap" Robert McClelland’s knuckles in? Bandages embedded with broken glass? Therapeutic mud and seaweed? Or, perhaps: a dissertation on the respective meanings of "wrap" and "rap"?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

Julia said:


> "Kevin Rudd wrapped McClelland’s knuckles..." Exactly what did Kevin Rudd "wrap" Robert McClelland’s knuckles in? Bandages embedded with broken glass? Therapeutic mud and seaweed? Or, perhaps: a dissertation on the respective meanings of "wrap" and "rap"?




off topic - but a couple of quotes about glass, gloves, knuckles, - brilliant imagery  (in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi - as indeed that crikey article is )   

Aung San Suu Kyi :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=207479&highlight=glass#post207479

Like Cousins was interviewed the other day "so you've put your gloves on" (referring to fight with Turnbull over pulpmill)  - "hell no", he said, " this has been bare knuckles for a long time" 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/23/2013605.htm

PS 
Exactly what did Kevin Rudd "wrap" Robert McClelland’s knuckles in?
Exactly in what did Kevin Rudd "wrap" Robert McClelland’s knuckles?


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

wayneL said:


> What's the longest word in the English language?




http://members.aol.com/gulfhigh2/words12.html


> *LLANFAIRPWLLGWYNGYLLGOGERYCHWYRNDROBWLLLLANTYSILIOGOGOGOCH* is according to one source the longest placename in the world, with 58 letters. It is a town in North Wales meaning "St. Mary's Church in the hollow of the white hazel near to the rapid whirlpool of Llantysilio of the red cave" or "St. Mary's (Church) by the white aspen over the whirlpool, and St. Tysilio's (Church) by the red cave" in Welsh.
> 
> Rob Ainsley, a reader of this page, writes:
> 
> ...





> Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.co.uk is often referred to as the longest valid domain name, even though it does not quite have the full 63 characters allowed. The actual undisputed longest valid domain name registered in the world also points to this website, and is:
> 
> *llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochuchaf.org.uk*
> This has 70 characters (including the org.uk) and is the upper (old) part of the village of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, more usually locally called "pentre uchaf". The ending "uchaf" is the welsh for "higher" or "upper", so pentre uchaf means "upper village".
> ...




ps apologies to any residents of  KRUNGTHEP MAHANAKHON BOVORN RATANAKOSIN MAHINTHARAYUTTHAYA MAHADILOKPOP NOPARATRATCHATHANI BURIROM UDOMRATCHANIVETMAHASATHAN AMORNPIMAN AVATARNS ATHIT SAKKATHATTIYAVISNUKARMPRASIT,    if in typing this I made any typos


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

.....


----------



## Santob (12 October 2007)

I never make misteaks.


----------



## BIG BWACULL (12 October 2007)

Santob said:


> I never make misteaks.



Youre liked me i alway cheque my Punchuation 
The best mistaek is T-bone Mmmmmmmmm


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

I found these amusing anyway 
http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Ideas/Fun/Wordplay.htm#FunnyMistakes



> FUNNY MISTAKES
> 
> These are mistakes in English seen on signs in other countries. If you don't understand why they are funny, ask a native English speaker to explain!
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

In the same vein ..



Pat said:


> To me punctuation is logical, however the spelling of some words is not. ..
> Why do we have such pronunciations as 'ph' meaning 'f' and so on?
> Perhaps the slang of now days is language evolution?
> Also I’ve learnt to cut and paste into MS word to help my spelling, but I come unstuck with some of the previous examples… patients/patience etc.






> Sounds and Letters
> A poem for English students
> 
> When in English class we speak,
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

Lol, these days you can even get help translating into "Ali G" 



> COCKNEY RHYMING SLANG
> 
> A Cockney is a person from a traditional working class area of east London. A way of speaking developed here known as "Cockney rhyming slang". A word is replaced by a phrase or a person's name which rhymes with it. For example, instead of saying "I don't believe it" a Cockney person might say "I don't Adam and Eve it". To make it harder, it is common for the second half of the phrase to be left out, however (for example "I don't Adam it").
> 
> ...


----------



## Pat (12 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Lol, these days you can even get help translating into "Ali G"



Nice poem 2020.
This morning I had a "dogs eye"...."meat pie" 
I think that just the English for you...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 October 2007)

Pat said:


> Nice poem 2020.
> This morning I had a "dogs eye"...."meat pie" ...



was that a Ruby one then?

today I buried my mobile dog to get a bit of peace 



> The logic is Ruby => Ruby Murray => curry, so "having a Ruby" means eating a curry. He also wrote that his girlfriend was "chatting to me on the dog". The logic is dog => dog and bone => phone, so "chatting on the dog" means talking on the telephone.




Often wondered where "rabbitting" originated 


> "She has been rabbiting on for ages" means "she has been talking for ages" (rabbit => rabbit and pork => talk)


----------



## Pat (13 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> was that a Ruby one then?
> 
> today I buried my mobile dog to get a bit of peace
> 
> ...




Twas a "chunky stop theif dogs eye"..... Stop theif = beef


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

before introducing spoonerisms  - here is that famous tongue-twister poem which tempts fate in this matter 

  The Pheasant Plucker
  German/American Tongue Twisters



> The sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick.
> (This is the World's Hardest Tongue Twister, according the Guiness Book of World Records.)





> I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a pheasant plucker's son
> I'm only plucking pheasants 'till the pheasant plucker comes.
> 
> Me husband is a keeper, he's a very busy man
> ...




 Bush Tongue Twisters
 Kaliber lager - Billy Connoly (tongue twister)


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoonerism
"I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy"
gee some of these  could be called spoonerisms, or a simple plays on words (by any of several other names) .

Still, a good way to introduce some humour into a speech at say a wedding or something 



> A spoonerism is a play on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched (see metathesis). It is named after the Reverend William Archibald Spooner (1844–1930), Warden of New College, Oxford, who was notoriously prone to this tendency.
> 
> While spoonerisms are commonly heard as slips of the tongue (sometimes spoonerised as tips of the slung), they are considered a form of pun when used purposely as a play on words.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 October 2007)

This one from Monty Python. (purely as an example of a spoonerism) 
(personally I used to find the Two Ronnies laboured it a bit)


> Port Shoem
> by The  Speverent Rooner
> 
> I've a Gouse and Harden in the country
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

Found an old book on the use of capitals - or "The Use of Capitals" or whatever :-

1. The first word of a sentence or quote 
He said, "Here it is."

2. Proper names or adjectives made from them.
America, American books
The Pacific Ocean

3. Namse of months and days of the week, but not seasons.

4. Academic degrees and titles.
Mr. A. G. Wilson, Bachelor of Arts
The Earl of Kildare

5. Important positions (depending on the importance).
He had just been promoted to the position of colonel.
He rose to the position of Managing Director.

6. Important words in the offcial titles of organisations 
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

7. Important words in the titles of books etc
At the Sign of the Dollar

8. The first and last words in the salutation of a letter, and the first word of the complimentary close. 
Dear Sir,
Mr dear Sir,
Yours faithfully.

Just that I never realised all this - in fact I usually ignore em


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

Oops, a second opinion (which differs) ...
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/592/01/

A Little Help with Capitals
This handout lists some guidelines for capitalization. If you have a question about whether a specific word should be capitalized that doesn't fit under one of these rules, try checking a dictionary to see if the word is capitalized there.

Use capital letters in the following ways:

11. The first words of a sentence
When he tells a joke, he sometimes forgets the punch line.

12. The pronoun "I"
The last time I visited Atlanta was several years ago.

13. Proper nouns (the names of specific people, places, organizations, and sometimes things)
Worrill Fabrication Company
Golden Gate Bridge
Supreme Court
Livingston, Missouri
Atlantic Ocean
Mothers Against Drunk Driving

14.  Family relationships (when used as proper names)
I sent a thank-you note to Aunt Abigail, but not to my other aunts.
Here is a present I bought for Mother.
Did you buy a present for your mother?

15. The names of God, specific deities, religious figures, and holy books
God the Father
the Virgin Mary
the Bible
the Greek gods
Moses
Shiva
Buddha
Zeus
Exception: Do not capitalize the non-specific use of the word "god."

The word "polytheistic" means the worship of more than one god.

16. Titles preceding names, but not titles that follow names
She worked as the assistant to Mayor Hanolovi.
I was able to interview Miriam Moss, mayor of Littonville.

17. Directions that are names (North, South, East, and West when used as sections of the country, but not as compass directions) 
The Patels have moved to the Southwest.
Jim's house is two miles north of Otterbein.

18. The days of the week, the months of the year, and holidays (but not the seasons used generally) 
Halloween
October
Friday
winter
spring
fall

Exception: Seasons are capitalized when used in a title. 
The Fall 1999 semester

19. The names of countries, nationalities, and specific languages 
Costa Rica
Spanish
French
English

20. The first word in a sentence that is a direct quote
Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

21. The major words in the titles of books, articles, and songs (but not short prepositions or the articles "the," "a," or "an," if they are not the first word of the title) 
One of Jerry's favorite books is The Catcher in the Rye.

22. Members of national, political, racial, social, civic, and athletic groups 
Green Bay Packers
African-Americans
Anti-Semitic
Democrats
Friends of the Wilderness
Chinese

23. Periods and events (but not century numbers) 
Victorian Era
Great Depression
Constitutional Convention
sixteenth century

24. Trademarks 
Pepsi
Honda
IBM
Microsoft Word

25. Words and abbreviations of specific names (but not names of things that came from specific things but are now general types) 
Freudian 
NBC
pasteurize
UN
french fries
italics


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 October 2007)

btw, I also reckon this well known sentence is wrong ..
*"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste".*

To me it  doesn't meet "parallel construction" requirements.  Well I think that's the reason, lol - but can't find it exactly expressed as such. 

Like 
in the same way you shouldn't say 

"I have finished writing the report, and it will be sent to you tomorrow"; and/or 
"Character is what we are, but we gain our reputation through the opinion of others"; and/or 
"Such a proposal makes not only economies, but also suggests new methods"; 

you should say 

" I have finished writing the report, and will send it to you tomorrow"; and/or
"Character is what we are, but reputation is what we gain through the opinion of others"; and/or 
"Such a proposal not only makes economies, but also suggests new methods";
(or "Such a proposal makes not only economies, but also new methods").

......

I just reckon that 
"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste."
arguably means that 

"More dentists than toothpaste recommend Colgate."

and should instead be :-
*"More dentists recommend Colgate than recommend any other toothpaste."*
But I've yet to find anyone else who agrees with me. 



> PS At last I've found an example that is a bit similar
> "The use of debt collectors is in some respects more efficient that to write collection letters"
> is wrong.
> 
> ...




PS  one last example 
"In the Country of the Blind, he who can see is King; in the Country of the Dumb, that person is the ruler who can speak."
is (apparently) wrong (??)

hence presumably should be changed to more parallel construction ... (sheesh pedantry this one) 
"In the Country of the Blind, he who can see is King; in the Country of the Dumb, he who can speak is ruler."
or
"In the Country of the Blind, that person who can see is King; in the Country of the Dumb, that person is the ruler who can speak." etc


----------



## Judd (14 October 2007)

Frankly I'm not sure.  "More" than what number of dentists?  The implication is that "Gee, a real whole lot of dentists.........." or is it greater than 50% or less than 2% but given that more than?

I have nothing against which to base "more."


----------



## Julia (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, I also reckon this well known sentence is wrong ..
> *"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste".*
> 
> 
> ...




I would actually agree with you, 2020, but I think the "correct" version sounds clumsy and a bit silly.  If we remember that the primary purpose of language is to communicate, and specifically in this instance that it's an advertisement, then I guess the original simply does it better.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

Julia said:


> I would actually agree with you, 2020, but I think the "correct" version sounds clumsy and a bit silly.  If we remember that the primary purpose of language is to communicate, and specifically in this instance that it's an advertisement, then I guess the original simply does it better.



thanks for the support Julia
 knew we'd agree one day 

I mean , for mine it's like saying

"More horticulturalist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust."


----------



## rederob (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks for the support Julia
> knew we'd agree one day
> 
> I mean , for mine it's like saying
> ...




Bush, Blair and Howard agreeing to war in Iraq did not make it "right".

How is the original wording in the Colgate advertisement grammatically wrong?

It is certainly wrong to say "More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust" because bulldust is not manure (and horticulturists is the collective term for the profession).
But if you meant "bulldust" to be construed as manure, the sentence is good.
Grammar does not exist in isolation of "meaning".
"Will you vote for Howard or Rudd?"
This has the same grammatical connotation as the original Colgate advertisement, so we don't repeat the question, do we.

"More footballers wear Nike than any other boot."
Seems ok?

"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church."
Now we are cooking with gas!
Are we saying more dentists are recommending Colgate than are recommending church going?
Or are we saying that there are more dentists that recommend Colgate than there are dentists that go to church?
As a "stand alone" sentence the statement is ambiguous.
However, in the context of a more purposeful sense there would be no need to change the sentence.
For example, if we are reporting census data on dentists and have just provided numbers for Colgate users and, separately, numbers for churchgoers then the sense of the sentence is self evident.


----------



## Julia (15 October 2007)

rederob said:


> How is the original wording in the Colgate advertisement grammatically wrong?
> 
> However, in the context of a more purposeful sense there would be no need to change the sentence.




I don't think 2020 was actually saying the original sentence was wrong, Rob, just that perhaps the precise meaning would be better conveyed by his adjusted version.

I could see what he meant and said so.  That's all.
Then I added the reason why I thought it was better in its original form.

Now I shall spend the rest of the afternoon worrying about how many dentists go to church.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

Rob
how about 
"more stock report writers recommend the directors of XYZ than any other conmen"


----------



## rederob (15 October 2007)

Julia
I agreed with your preference.

2020
If you don't want to indulge in disambiguation then you are welcome to con whom ever.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

rederob said:


> 2020
> If you don't want to indulge in disambiguation then you are welcome to con whom ever.




Rob,
1. please explain lol

2. how about 
"more stock report writers recommend the directors of XYZ than any other churchgoers" 

(ps and please don't suggest I go to church to find out if it's 
a) the writers or 
b) the directors who go there as well )

PS If it's the writers ( which I believe it is no question) 
then why isn't the Colgate sentence also wrong - 

unless, as you infer, we needn't be exact or perfect - (or entertain arguably unnecessary disambiguation) -  because "most people would sort of understand".


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

hey rob 
I rang the Uni of Sydney English Dept, Faculty of Arts
finally put through to some professor lady - 
asked her about that Colgate sentence, 

she said that she used Macleans !
and if I wanted to find out about Colgate I should google it ?


----------



## anne (15 October 2007)

Joe is   right -    it is *people's *literacy  skills!  

The  easiest  way to  work  it  out  is to to  spell the sentence  out in  long version and and  if the  "core" word    is expressed as a plural  i.e.   has an additional  "s"  at the end,  you  whack  in the apostrophe after the "s";  if the core   word  doesn't have   an additional  "s"   at the end ,    you whack in an apostrphe plus an  "s".

people's literacy skills spells out  to  mean  the litercy skills of *people *-  no "s"  in core  work (  even   though  it is a  plural  in the literal sense!) so therefore the answer is   people's literacy skills .

If  we were talking  about  rabbits' literacy skills,  spelt  out, that is the literacy skills of *rabbits *-  note the additional "s"   so therefore the answer is  rabbits plus apostrophe i.e.   rabbits' literacy skills 

Of couse   if we were talking  about the grass's literacy skills, spelt out, the core word is grass - and  even   though grass ends with  "s"    the "s" is not an additional   letter   but is   part of the core  word     so  therefore   the answer is  core word plus apostrophe plus "s" i.e. grass's literacy skills!

I taught  effective business writing  for 17 years;   soon after starting  my  business,  I  realised I  had to  develop  another  workshop  teaching   professionals  how to avoid common grammatical and punctuation  errors!

I got so  sick  of teaching this stuff that it was  a great incentive  for  me to     get   really good at    the stock market  so  that I  never  had to teach  another writing workshop again!

Funnily enough,  I  am  the worst  poster on forums  because I can't     stand to read the drivel  I   write and I  am a terrible typist -   so  my  posts  contain  more  typos and    writing errors  than  anybody's else's  posts -  and I  don't care!

It is unprofessional  though -  and I  probably  do  come  across as  quite demented!  But I  still don't care! The  beautiful thing about    investing in the stock  market  full-time  for me is  that I  don't   have to use a single word to succeed!

Cheers Anne


----------



## anne (15 October 2007)

this is funny -    I cannot   handle  the forum layout  of ASF!  it is  totally illogical  for me.  It always  takes  me to the first post of the thread  rather than  the last post. 

it turns  out that previous  post I  made was in response  to  something   someone  has  psoted  on the first  page of this thread , eons ago,   not  reaslising that  16  additional pages of posts   have occurred since!  

Hope   everyone  appreciates  my  apostrophe refresher lesson!

Cheers Anne


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

rederob said:


> 1. Bush, Blair and Howard agreeing to war in Iraq did not make it "right".
> 2. How is the original wording in the Colgate advertisement grammatically wrong?
> 3. It is certainly wrong to say "More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust" because bulldust is not manure (and horticulturists is the collective term for the profession).
> 4. But if you meant "bulldust" to be construed as manure, the sentence is good.
> ...




since you went to the trouble to advance the argument ( oops - make that discussion ) 
PS don't want this to end up as WWIII lol - just that I respect your opinion on grammar, and surprised by your conclusions here. 

1. agreed 
2. in summary I think "more .... " and "than.... "  should be followed by the things which are the alternatives (said in "parallel construction") - except that the subject can be understood, eg your excellent example below:-
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
to me means
"More dentists recommend Colgate than (dentists - understood) go to church"

But as Judd says, in the Colgate sentence there is nothing against which to base "more" (sorta - other than context - but this is an exercise in super-correct ok? - pedantry if you prefer  )   

and (PS) it seems to have something to do with the number of times you repeat the verb. (to my subconscious anyway)

3. re : (More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other bulldust) - mmm bulldust intentionally has double meaning here - like could be manure or could be a report of questionable merit - leaving it either ambiguous (at best) or (imo) clearly that the reports are bulldust. 

4. re (But if you meant "bulldust" to be construed as manure, 
"More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than any other manure" 
the sentence is good.) 
mmm I disagree (same stumbling block),  if that were the case you 'd have to say :-
"More horticulturist reports recommend Hereford than recommend any other manure" (imo)

5. Grammar does not exist in isolation of "meaning".  ok, probably true - and probably why no one else has ever found fault with that ad, lol. 

6. re ("Will you vote for Howard or Rudd?") - I 'm lost mate - can't see the connection. 

7. re ("More footballers wear Nike than any other boot.") 
disagree again - same problem - but I have no problem with :- 
"*More footballers *wear Nike *than any other sportsmen*". (if you get my ghist)
...........................

8. re ("*More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church*.") - perfect
(*Now we are cooking with gas!*) agreed . 

9. (Are we saying more dentists are recommending Colgate than are recommending church going?) - nope

10. (Or are we saying that there are *more dentists that recommend Colgate than there are dentists that go to church*?) - yep - clear as day to me 

11. (As a "stand alone" sentence the statement is ambiguous.)  disagree

12. (For example, if we are reporting census data on dentists and have just provided numbers for Colgate users and, separately, numbers for churchgoers then the sense of the sentence is self evident.)  
it's clear any which way , no ambiguity to me at all . 

maybe this is another of those left brain right brain tests, lol ?



> PS I'll be honest, the example I gave back there is still different .
> 
> and in any event, I personally don't think it's wrong to say the following, even if it's neater to say the parallel construction alternatives :-
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 October 2007)

anne said:


> this is funny -    I cannot   handle  the forum layout  of ASF!  it is  totally illogical  for me.  It always  takes  me to the first post of the thread  rather than  the last post.
> 
> it turns  out that previous  post I  made was in response  to  something   someone  has  psoted  on the first  page of this thread , eons ago,   not  reaslising that  16  additional pages of posts   have occurred since!
> 
> ...




Hi Anne, without trying to be a smarty-pants goanna legs, I want to say literacy is a whole and therefore could/should be worded ... 

literate skills. 

literacy skill. (not plural)


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

anne said:


> this is funny -    I cannot   handle  the forum layout  of ASF!  it is  totally illogical  for me.  It always  takes  me to the first post of the thread  rather than  the last post.
> 
> it turns  out that previous  post I  made was in response  to  something   someone  has  psoted  on the first  page of this thread , eons ago,   not  reaslising that  16  additional pages of posts   have occurred since!
> 
> ...



Anne
rats  - I thought you were gonna sort out that colgate ad for me , lol - 

btw, if you go to :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/account/preferences
and take the option "linear, newest first", then you'll reverse the sequence of posts 


but thanks for sorting out apostrophes.

PS And another thing lol-----
Why do they say "Harry is a dentist so we can't show you his face"(??)
Does that mean that this bloke (in this second Colgate ad)  is just an actor - pretending he's a dentist? 
 Mrs Marsh Toothpaste Ad


----------



## anne (15 October 2007)

Hi 2020hindsight,

thanks for  the   tip  on  nagivating  ASF better!

You're right about the colgate sentence  being non-parallel.

I guess the "correct"   version is  closer to 

Dentists   recommend colgate more   often than  they  recommend any other  toothpaste.

More dentists recommend  colgate than they  do  any other toothpaste.

i hate  all this nit-picking though -  Julia  is right:  the purpose of the colgate ad was to flog  colgate and    the best way to flog colgate  is to use  words  that  feel most   comfortable  to the target  audience - think  lowest common denominator!!!!

Colgate   probably would  have road-tested    heaps of  versions and selected   this  one to be teh best seller of toothpaste!

There used to  be a Coke  slogan   that  went:  Coke  has the taste you never get tired of.  

That is   without doubt an appalling sentence -  but  it sold coke really well!


A neater,  more elegant way to  say  that  would  be Coke  has the taste  you  never tire  of  -  but it would  be too high-brow  for the target audience!

English language  pedants  also would attack the slogan for  ending with a preposition!  They'd  prefer:  Coke has the taste for which  you never tire (!!!)  or  You  never   get tired  of the taste of  coke.


people enjoy splitting hairs  too much ove the english  language. It is often a case of   too much  knowledge is a dangerous  weapon *that *is used to    humiliate others! (*that*  is   correct, *which *is incorrect!!!)

i believe  the biggest fault  with most writing is that it is too damned stuffy -  and wordy - and  vague  - and takes  forever to  get to  the point!  

Most  documents  would be  vastly  improved if they  were  mandatorily halved  in length!  That  takes  copious editing -  something I  hate  doing - because it's hard  work.

i spent  all weekend    writing  an important letter -  and I  am  still not  finished it.  it won't be the "proper  english"   that  determines whether it succeeds or not   but  the tight prose, a convincing and well-detailed argument and  a   willingness to   open  with   my  key point rather than  to close with it!

I am  so glad  I  do  not have to  run writing workshops any more! Share investing is heaps  more  fun.  But I  have kinda  moved  on  from that too  and now   want to    fix up the world!  you need more than  correct english to  fix up the world -  you need solutions!

Sorry,  I  got off the topic!

PS The  dentist can't show his face  because dentists aren't allowed to advertise -  is  that what you were asking about?

Cheers Anne


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

The Image - Colgate Commercial

ok, I agree that if you have the context, you can sing a totally irrelevant song and still get the message across 

I think these are unambiguous:-
a) more smokers than non-smokes should use colgate
b) more smokers should use colgate than non-smokes (same as a) above)
c) smokers should use more colgate than non-smokers use

However, this is ambiguous IMO:-

d) "*smokers should listen to colgate ads more than non-smokers*."

Does that mean 
(i) that smokers should listen to ads more than to non-smokers?
or 
(ii) that smokers should listen more than non-smokers?
(?? I 've confused myself now lol ).

e) "*smokers should listen to colgate ads more than to non-smokers*."
no longer ambiguous


PS this girl is a smoker so they shouldn't have shown you her face 



> SPOT ON Anne -
> You're the second person to agree lol -
> only taken me 40 years and 18 posts on ASF lol
> 
> *Dentists recommend colgate more often than they recommend any other toothpaste*.




PS If any smokers are offended - please note that NO SMOKERS WERE USED IN THE FILMING OF THIS AD!!
THAT'S LICORICE STAIN! lol


----------



## rederob (15 October 2007)

2020
I should not need to clarify what is clear.
When you write ambiguously, which you have done with examples subsequent to my posted reply to you, then you must provide context or otherwise clarify the sense.
The Colgate example contains no ambiguity.
Colgate is a subset of toothpastes.
Hereford is a subset of cattle, not of bulldust.
We do not generally link Hereford with bulldust, so you would need to construct your sense more carefully in the example given - assuming you were not deliberately trying to be ambiguous.
The other sense you have alluded to requires a misreading of what you have written. 

If you cannot see the link between my Rudd and Howard example, you are probably trying to reconstruct your own reality rather than understand the simple sense of what it means to vote Liberal or Labor.  My point was that the Colgate, and Rudd/Howard examples do not require repetition.  You want "recommend" to be repeated in the Colgate example. Why? It's redundant.

You have a preference for "More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen" rather than my example.  This shows how poorly you comprehend.  Your preference implies that footballers can wear "Nike" or "sportsmen".  That's an absurdity because we know that footballers are unlikely to wear sportsmen ( although if Nike was a subset of sportsmen the sentence would be ok).
For much the same reason you have constructed others sentences that are equally nonsensical or are ambiguous.

I don't really care if you agree or disagree with what I write.
And you are welcome to believe what you will.
But please don't ask me to clarify something if you are not willing to open your mind to other possibilities.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

anne said:


> i hate  all this nit-picking though -  Julia  is right:  the purpose of the colgate ad was to flog  colgate and    the best way to flog colgate  is to use  words  that  feel most   comfortable  to the target  audience - think  lowest common denominator!!!!




Anne - here's a true story

Back in the 60's, Phillip Morris (I think) had an ad... "Phillip Morris, the *sophisticated* cigarette".

Most people think that means classy right?  - not strictly so. 

An old bloke I knew, a neighbour, about 90 at the time - I  admired him greatly - wrote to them and pointed out that the dictionary in those days defined "sophisticated" something similar to the following :- 



> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophisticated
> (one of eight meanings here
> American Heritage Dictionary -
> *so·phis·ti·cate  *
> ...



Now I agree that there is a second meaning (which has evolved from this one) which is closer to "classy", less naive, etc.

Anyway Phillip Morris sent him an acknowledgment that he was right - offered him a year's supply of their cigarettes ( which he declined, lol) - I think in the end he got a cash setllement to shut up.  

Moral of the story ? 
 Companies should get these things right


----------



## Pat (15 October 2007)

From reading this enthralling "discussion", I have come to the conclusion the English language is far from perfect and is extremely illogical. I have much to learn if I would like to communicate in a similar way to... lets say... the Queen of England???



anne said:


> this is funny -    I cannot   handle  the forum layout  of ASF!  it is  totally illogical  for me.  It always  takes  me to the first post of the thread  rather than  the last post.



You can click on the little blue shaded icon (>) next to the name of the poster, like the one above (your quote), it will go to that post. Same thing when the results of a search appear etc.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

rederob said:


> You have a preference for "More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen" rather than my example.  This shows how poorly you comprehend.  Your preference implies that footballers can wear "Nike" or "sportsmen".




wow, amazing - in summary rob 

you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg 
"More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other sportsmen"

and conversely,  I find ambiguous what you find unambiguous, eg
"More dentists recommend Colgate than any other toothpaste"
"More footballers wear Nike than any other boot"

PS (since Julia , Anne and I agree - does that make us the coalition of the unwilling ?) lol

PS no need to get personal - It's only a matter of life and death lol. 

PS did anyone see Media Watch? - sheesh I love that show !!


----------



## noirua (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> wow, amazing - in summary rob
> 
> you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
> "More dentists recommend Colgate than go to church"
> ...




Hi, Seems like a post to avoid antidisestablishmentairialism.

Or maybe, the longest word in the English language:  Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> wow, amazing - in summary rob
> 
> you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
> "*More* dentists recommend Colgate *than* go to church"
> ...



rob .....

suppose I replace "more...  than..." with "either.... or ...",  I get the following ...

would it be true to conclude...



> you find ambiguous what I find unambiguous, eg
> "*Either* dentists recommend Colgate *or* go to church"
> "*Either* footballers wear Nike *or* other sportsmen"
> 
> ...




PS In summary, I can't see why you are so sure that you're right  


PS I would have no problem with the following :-  
My rule is real simple ( though you keep assuming I'm twisting things) 
....... that "either" and "or"  must be followed by the alternative options.  ..


> ..
> "dentists recommend *either* Colgate *or* other toothpaste"
> "footballers wear *either* Nike *or *any other boot"


----------



## Julia (15 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS (since Julia , Anne and I agree - does that make us the coalition of the unwilling ?) lol



Hey, 2020, just hold it.  I acknowledged the point you were making *but went on to say that I thought the original version was more appropriate in conveying the information, especially for an advertisement.*

Rob and Anne (welcome to the discussion, Anne - great points you made)
both emphasised the point that -  particularly in advertising - successfully conveying the message is much more important than using grammatically correct English which will often sound "wrong" to the target audience.

Any further dissection of this might be fun if you have nothing else to do, but really is becoming close to farcical imo.

Btw, Anne, how very unkind of you to suggest advertisers need to target the lowest common denominator!  Ah, but how true.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

ok ok 
Here are some more examples of that parallel construction stuff. (last ones I promise lol).  My guess is that you'd say this is all old hat.   Personally, I think these sentences sound better when adjusted a bit.  (no biggie ok lol) 

These are some examples from an old grammar book,  last reprint 1971 
*Things might have changed I concede. *



> "Re-write the following, applying the principle of parallel construction in each case :-
> 
> 1. He was a fine speaker, but one who did not excel in writing.
> 2. Please recommend a man who can take charge of the office and to supervise correspondence.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

ok - what's wrong with these? ..  (no need to say why, unless you're real keen ) 



> 1. They never have, and never will choose the right man for the job.
> 2. One man was arrested, and two injured.
> 3. This door is the entrance and exit from the hall.




and then there is "will" and "shall" 



> 4. My brother says that he shall help me if he can spare the time.
> 
> (this book reckons that "shall" should be "will" - lol - try telling that to Standards Australia - I am on a Code Committee, and boy don't they like that word "shall" lol. )


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 October 2007)

Further to that parallel construction stuff, here's a previous post where the construction is intentionally "diagonal" (called "chiasmus" apparently) 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=205511&highlight=chiasmus#post205511



> Repetition of ideas in inverted order
> Repetition of grammatical structures in inverted order (not to be mistaken with antimetabole, in which identical words are repeated and inverted).
> 
> Examples
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2007)

btw apparently it is correct to say 
He never has and never will cut the cloth correctly.
but not 
Man never has and never will fly to Mars.
(never has flown and never will fly)



> which is correct (and why) :-
> My wife objected to me being late.
> My wife objected to my being late.  (?)


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Hey, 2020, just hold it.  I acknowledged the point you were making *but went on to say that I thought the original version was more appropriate in conveying the information, especially for an advertisement.*
> 
> Rob and Anne (welcome to the discussion, Anne - great points you made)
> both emphasised the point that -  particularly in advertising - successfully conveying the message is much more important than using grammatically correct English which will often sound "wrong" to the target audience.
> ...



yep - agreed will all that Julia
agree that Anne's posts is good too 

as for the highly qualified support you gave me - yep acknowledge that as well in a two fold sense, the fact that it was support, and the fact that it was highly qualified, lol.

ps that's why I called it the "coalition of the unwilling" btw 



> PS Excuse me checking out these weird Shakepearean sentence constructions.
> It's just that ...an engineer doesn't get many chances to use 'diagonal construction"
> 
> "But O, what a risk there is that buildings may fall
> that lean, yet stand; hang on, but lean some more." etc


----------



## Snagglepuss (16 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Many teachers in our public schools these days cannot spell and have a minimal understanding of grammar.




A notice from my son's school yesterday, written by the principal, contained this howler: "two year's ago". This is a private school for which we pay good money, so I would have expected better ...

- Snaggle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> A notice from my son's school yesterday, written by the principal, contained this howler: "two year's ago".



"the school I went two year's ago has been remolished?"


----------



## Julia (16 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> A notice from my son's school yesterday, written by the principal, contained this howler: "two year's ago". This is a private school for which we pay good money, so I would have expected better ...
> 
> - Snaggle.




Will you take this up with the school, Snaggle?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 October 2007)

I haven't got a clue who's right ( rob or me,
 rob or I?) - probably rob , whatever ...

but here's a hypothetical .. (just playing around with the topic ok)

that blond girl took an english course and wrote to Colgate saying
their toothpaste was fantastic but they're grammar disobeying
they asked her would she stay lip-sealed with a year's supply of paste
and now more dentists recommend her white smile than her waist .

maybe Colgate will understand I'm not against their product per se 
This girl is a dental nurse - so we shouldn't show you her face -  but what the heck, she's a stunner.

PS heck - let's not get started on smoking ads 
 The Image - Colgate Commercial


----------



## GreatPig (17 October 2007)

anne said:


> It is often a case of too much knowledge is a dangerous weapon *that* is used to humiliate others! (*that* is correct, *which* is incorrect!!!)



Actually both are correct. Either "that" or "which" can introduce a restrictive clause, but only "which" can introduce a nonrestrictive clause (following a comma). The assertion that only "that" can introduce a restrictive clause is commonly stated, but is not correct.



			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I haven't got a clue who's right ( rob or me, rob or I?)



Depends on where it's used in a sentence. As the subject it would be Rob or I, but as the object Rob or me.

Rob or I could go.
He can send it to either Rob or me.

Cheers,
GP


----------



## Snagglepuss (18 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Will you take this up with the school, Snaggle?




I wasn't planning to, Julia. Do you think I should? When I think about it I think of  ...

On a different note, I went to a seminar today and the speaker kept saying "The reason why ...". Am I correct in thinking that this is poor grammar? It certainly sounds bad to me. For example "The reason why the US dollar is falling is ..." is surely better expressed as "The reason the US dollar is falling is ...". Comments?

- Snaggle.


----------



## rederob (18 October 2007)

GreatPig said:


> Actually both are correct. Either "that" or "which" can introduce a restrictive clause, but only "which" can introduce a nonrestrictive clause (following a comma). The assertion that only "that" can introduce a restrictive clause is commonly stated, but is not correct.
> 
> 
> Depends on where it's used in a sentence. As the subject it would be Rob or I, but as the object Rob or me.
> ...



That which was also correct when when Anne said that shows that those which prefer that could also be written as those that prefer that, when really we should be saying who after those, or possibly whom - should you prefer.
Myself?
That is me: I prefer either depending on which words are used that make it sound nicer.
However, as you note, there are rules that prevent which, in the preceding sentence, being written as that. 
Off for another red now.
Cheers


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> I wasn't planning to, Julia. Do you think I should? When I think about it I think of  ...
> 
> On a different note, I went to a seminar today and the speaker kept saying "The reason why ...". Am I correct in thinking that this is poor grammar? It certainly sounds bad to me. For example "The reason why the US dollar is falling is ..." is surely better expressed as "The reason the US dollar is falling is ...". Comments?
> 
> - Snaggle.



Hi Snaggle,

Yes, if it were my child's school, I would be politely drawing their attention to the error.  Nothing wrong with expressing your concern about whether or not your child is being properly educated when the school principal makes such a basic error.  I guess you feel it seems like nitpicking.  It would in any other environment but this is an institution of learniing - and a private one for which you are no doubt paying reasonably fees - and I'd be reluctant to let them get away with it.  If you do take it up, I'd be interested in the response.


----------



## ghotib (18 October 2007)

Julia said:


> Hi Snaggle,
> 
> Yes, if it were my child's school, I would be politely drawing their attention to the error.  Nothing wrong with expressing your concern about whether or not your child is being properly educated when the school principal makes such a basic error.  I guess you feel it seems like nitpicking.  It would in any other environment but this is an institution of learniing - and a private one for which you are no doubt paying reasonably fees - and I'd be reluctant to let them get away with it.  If you do take it up, I'd be interested in the response.




Not to pick a nit or anything, but "whether or not" is a redundancy. I'll pretend I didn't notice "reasonably fees"; it's obviously a typo, which should be blamed on fingers rather than brains.

Dangerous business commenting on language. 

I've been hoping someone might talk about sentences like this:

"It's difficult to underestimate how bored people are with electoral advertising."

Does this mean that people are very, very bored, or that people are very, very interested?

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (18 October 2007)

ghotib said:


> Not to pick a nit or anything, but "whether or not" is a redundancy. I'll pretend I didn't notice "reasonably fees"; it's obviously a typo, which should be blamed on fingers rather than brains.
> 
> Dangerous business commenting on language.



Yes, you are right - the "or not" is redundant.  Thank you for pointing that out.  The fact that it's a commonly used and understood expression is beside the point.

My apologies for the typo.  Why not drop the "I'll pretend I didn't notice" when quite clearly you did, and just draw my attention to that as well?


----------



## GreatPig (19 October 2007)

ghotib said:


> "whether or not" is a redundancy



That's an issue of style, not grammar. Grammatically there's nothing wrong with it, and sometimes the "or not" needs to be there. Try this with and without it:

I'll love the car whether (or not) it has mag wheels.



> "It's difficult to underestimate how bored people are with electoral advertising."
> 
> Does this mean that people are very, very bored, or that people are very, very interested?



It doesn't make any suggestion either way. It's only referring to the degree of difficulty involved in coming up with an estimate of the level of boredom that isn't too low.

GP


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 October 2007)

GreatPig said:


> 1.Actually both are correct. Either "that" or "which" can introduce a restrictive clause, but only "which" can introduce a nonrestrictive clause (following a comma). The assertion that only "that" can introduce a restrictive clause is commonly stated, but is not correct.
> 
> 
> 2. Depends on where it's used in a sentence. As the subject it would be Rob or I, but as the object Rob or me.
> ...




So GP
1. - already addressed / expanded on.  
2.  As a stand alone sentence, which is/are correct :-

a) I don't know who is right, Tom or I.
b) I don't know who is right, Tom or me.

maybe easiest to say
c) I don't know whose interpretation is right, Tom's or mine.

3. since you seem to have the jargon ...  any comments on #314?  

or this if you prefer..  I think that d) and e) are identical (and both confusing obviously)... - (Rob disagrees - see #314)

c) Now more dentists recommend her white smile than her waist.

d) Now they recommend her white smile,  *more* dentists *than* her waist .


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 October 2007)

ghotib said:


> I've been hoping someone might talk about sentences like this:
> 
> "It's difficult to underestimate how bored people are with electoral advertising."
> 
> ...



Ghoti, apart from the fact that you have to think about it for 10 minutes lol

and after 10 mins I have no idea lol

"It's difficult to underestimate how bored people are with electoral advertising."  means that boredom is *either more or less* than most estimate

"It's difficult to overestimate how bored people are with electoral advertising."  means that boredom is *either less or more *than most estimate


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 October 2007)

the new car's fuel consumption is now 20 miles per gallon, and I'd like that to come down confused


----------



## GreatPig (19 October 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. As a stand alone sentence, which is/are correct :-
> 
> a) I don't know who is right, Tom or I.
> b) I don't know who is right, Tom or me.



Tom or I. Try splitting it into two individual questions:

I don't know who is right. Is Tom right, or am [I/me] right?

Or turn it back into statements:

Tom is right. [I/me] am right.

I think those types of statements in #314 can be ambiguous and just need to be made clear from context. I don't think there's any specific rule about one being correct and the other incorrect though.

Another type of example:

He threw the vase at the window, smashing it into little pieces.

Did the vase smash or the window? Could be either, so it needs to be clear from the wider context.

She swung the champagne bottle against the bow of the new navy frigate, smashing it into little pieces.

I doubt too many would assume the frigate got smashed in that example. 

Cheers,
GP


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 October 2007)

GreatPig said:


> She swung the champagne bottle against the bow of the new navy frigate, smashing it into little pieces.
> 
> I doubt too many would assume the frigate got smashed in that example.
> 
> ...



thank, but I disagree - 

I mean, the quality of steel you get out of China these days - it's a 50-50 which would smash 

PS great examples btw - thanks


----------



## Julia (19 October 2007)

GreatPig said:


> She swung the champagne bottle against the bow of the new navy frigate, smashing it into little pieces.
> 
> I doubt too many would assume the frigate got smashed in that example.
> 
> ...




LOL.  Great imagery thinking of the frigate disintegrating.


----------



## Snagglepuss (19 October 2007)

No comments yet on "the reason why"?

Ok, here's another error which I see periodically: "I can't buy stock XXX because the price is too expensive".

The problem is that a price is a _number_ and therefore it can be described as being high or low (or in-between), but it cannot be "expensive" or "cheap". An _item_ can be expensive, which means that its _price_ is _high_.

In a similar vein, you sometimes hear people saying that the temperature is too cold, when they should say that the temperature is too _low_.

Or that a car's speed is too fast, when actually the speed is too _high_.

- Snaggle.


----------



## rederob (19 October 2007)

Snagglepuss said:


> No comments yet on "the reason why"?
> - Snaggle.



Who knows the reason why?


----------



## wayneL (26 October 2007)

I've seen this mistake a few times now:



> Of cause this just an anecdote,




Being a goddamned yank, this mistake is unthinkable because of the pronunciation of "course". Even with the British/Aussie pronunciation, this is still a doozie.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 October 2007)

lol, wayne - then of course there are examples of coarse course language ...
"only way that bloody horse will ever win a goddamned race is inside the belly of a f***ing greyhound."


Ms Eliza Doolittle, act 1 :-
"shift your blooming a-rse" 

Ms Eliza Doolittle, act 3:-
"Why certainly Higgins, of course I'll sing a coarse song in the course of the concert for the cause, if it helps get horses back on the course in time for the cup - even if these are the coarsest corsets you've ever caused me to wear"

etc etc 



> course
> 1. a direction or route taken or to be taken.
> 2. the path, route, or channel along which anything moves: the course of a stream.
> 3. advance or progression in a particular direction; forward or onward movement.
> ...





> cause
> 1. a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect: You have been the cause of much anxiety. What was the cause of the accident?
> 2. the reason or motive for some human action: The good news was a cause for rejoicing.
> 3. good or sufficient reason: to complain without cause; to be dismissed for cause.
> ...





> coarse
> 1. composed of relatively large parts or particles: The beach had rough, coarse sand.
> 2. lacking in fineness or delicacy of texture, structure, etc.: The stiff, coarse fabric irritated her skin.
> 3. harsh; grating.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 November 2007)

1. Every person present did their best to help.  (right/wrong?)
2. Every person present did his best to help.  (right/wrong?)
3. Every person present did his or her best to help.  (right/wrong?)

4. All men and women present did their best to help.  (right/wrong?)

5. Everybody present helped.  (right/wrong?)

6. Neither of the men were selected.  (right/wrong?)
7. Neither of the men was selected.  (right/wrong?)

8. Neither of the twins is to blame.  (right/wrong?)
9. Neither of the triplets is to blame.   (right/wrong?)

10. Each of the boys filled their pockets with the stolen fruit.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 November 2007)

cripes this gets tricky lol.

1. They are older than us, yet we did better than them.
2. They are older than we, yet we did better than they.


----------



## noirua (13 November 2007)

The Free Dictionary can be very helpful:  http://www.thefreedictionary.com


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

lol - If anyone likes spoonerism humour ( I think I'm right lol)
Kath and Kim movie lol  Channel 7 now 

"like an octopus spreading his testicles over everything" etc lol

lol Sharon is "getting married to some bloke she's been chatting to all day and all night on the chatroom" lol
(Magda Szubanski)

she's taken up Pole dancing - lol - turns up to the lesson dressed in Polish garb lol - 
rofl


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 February 2008)

LOOSE is like not tight


LOSE is like not gain


Q. are 50% of people taught to spell lose with double `o`


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 February 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> LOOSE is like not tight
> LOSE is like not gain
> Q. are 50% of people taught to spell lose with double `o`



wys, just that we sometimes find ourselves in a "loose-loose" situation?  maybe? - or is that "hang loose-loose". ?

Q. Mr Lautrek , why are you always broke?
A. mmm maybe because I was "born Toulouse"?


----------



## bassmanpete (14 April 2008)

I'm trying to catch up so haven't read all the posts so if this has been said before, please forgive me.



> They are older than we, yet we did better than they.




This one's easy if you realise that it's a contraction of 'They are older than we ARE, yet we did better than they DID.'


----------



## GreatPig (15 April 2008)

That's fine if you want to sound like an upper-class British git, but if you prefer to sound like an average Aussie bloke or sheila, you'll treat "than" as a preposition in that case and use objective pronouns after it. 

GP


----------



## treefrog (16 April 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> I'm trying to catch up so haven't read all the posts so if this has been said before, please forgive me.
> 
> 
> 
> This one's easy if you realise that it's a contraction of 'They are older than we ARE, yet we did better than they DID.'




prefer: "they are older, yet we did better"


----------



## wayneL (16 April 2008)

GreatPig said:


> That's fine if you want to sound like an upper-class British git, but if you prefer to sound like an average Aussie bloke or sheila, you'll treat "than" as a preposition in that case and use objective pronouns after it.
> 
> GP



Around my area of 'Nam you are like to hear "They are older than we, yet we did better than they". But a quick walk down the road and it would be "Wo'ever, we'z better than them old geezers".


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 April 2008)

then of course the private school educated Pom might resort to "in" -acronyms ..  like 
NOCD 
not our class darling ..., etc. 

best responded to by singing a round of "walking the bulldog" - sung  delicately  ..



> Once a jolly vagabond camped down by a lily pond
> Under the spreading chestnut tree
> And he sang as he watched as he waited till his kettle boiled
> Who'll come a walking the bulldog with me.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 August 2008)

just heard this one on ABC ... an example of when grammar sounds "strange"

a) we won the semifinal by fewer than 15 seconds  
b) we won the semifinal by less than 15 seconds (my vote)


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> just heard this one on ABC ... an example of when grammar sounds "strange"
> 
> a) we won the semifinal by fewer than 15 seconds
> b) we won the semifinal by less than 15 seconds (my vote)




_Fewer or Less?

Use fewer with objects that can be counted one-by-one.

Use less with qualities or quantities that cannot be individually counted.

    Incorrect: There were less days below freezing last winter.

    Correct: There were fewer days below freezing last winter.
    (Days can be counted.)

    Correct: I drank less water than she did.
    (Water cannot be counted individually here.)

*When referring to time or money, less is normally used even with numbers. *Specific units of time or money use fewer only in cases where individual items are referred to.

    Examples: I have less than an hour to do this work.

    I have less time to this work.

    I have less money than I need.

    I have less than twenty dollars.

    He worked fewer hours than I did.

The only occasion in which you might say, "I have fewer than twenty dollars," would be when you were talking about specific dollar bills or coins, such as "I have fewer than twenty silver dollars in my collection." _


----------



## Julia (14 August 2008)

Another very common mistake is for people to refer to 'one another' when talking about just two people, and 'each other' when referring to many people.
Should of course be the other way around.

Also noticeable when I've been unable to avoid hearing the occasional bit on the radio about the dreaded Olympics is reporters referring to the "Dias".
It's the "Dais", fellas.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 August 2008)

i wood like to take the opportoonity to thank everyone here for learning me great grammer and spelling stuff , i am  doing real gooder now 
 thankyou , thankyou very much


----------



## GreatPig (14 August 2008)

Such an appropriate username you have...

GP


----------



## nioka (14 August 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> i wood like to take the opportoonity to thank everyone here for learning me great grammer and spelling stuff , i am  doing real gooder now
> thankyou , thankyou very much




Grate yuh doin reel gooder nour. Itz ah inspiatchun two all uz educatad fokes too bee abal two halp.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 August 2008)

nunthewiser said:


> i wood like to take the opportoonity to thank everyone here for learning me great grammer and spelling stuff , i am  doing real gooder now
> thankyou , thankyou very much




ok ok nun lol  - no need to take the piss (or maybe there is a need, lol ) 
we all cringe a bit posting to a thread called "grammar lessons" - 
think of it as discussion / sharing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 August 2008)

Something I keep meaning to research is  - suppose you have a quote in a sentence (or the entire sentence is a quote) - should you finish the sentence with ".   or with ."
I'm guessing the latter, (although I usually use the former) - but maybe there are cases when the former is correct 

"Go to work".
"Go to work".
He said "Go to work".
He said "Go to work."

Getting down to the important questions now! lol - 
Forget this stuff about "Is there a God?"
or should that be ""Is there a God"?"?  

He said "she said "he said "they went to work."""


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 August 2008)

I think I've gone mad!

I think "I think I've gone mad!"!

I think "I think "I think I've gone mad!"!"! 

I think (ahhh sHUddup!).

PS just that it's an example of ending in "!


----------



## Michael9 (15 August 2008)

Hi
I just checked out that site referred to above and it's great. Thanks for that . 
I find myself a little flummoxed lately. As we move from latin plural forms to anglicised forms e.g., minima and maxima to minimums and maximums, I wonder who is making those decisions? It would be OK if the change was consistent but I'm yet to hear people talking about phenomenons, datums and agendums (mind you, the word agenda has been comprehensively misrepresented as singular for yonks anyway). Any more anomalies you've run across? You've gotta love language doncha!
Michael


----------



## noirua (15 August 2008)

They now recognise my efforts and application to my trade and I have so applied to the Institution to both affiliate myself, and for them to fully reconcilliate the present position and in being so reconciled, both award me an Honorary Degree and a Guinea.  Or failing that, I take my so honourable right to protest the lack of the same and so look forward to your decision accordingly.

I am your most honourable servant in the Lord

Master Joseph the Carpenter  3rd March 1391


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think I've gone mad!
> 
> I think "I think I've gone mad!"!
> 
> ...




After the third thought (think) I know you know you are (mad).


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 August 2008)

An interesting phenomena I encounter is the written word understanding and the spoken word understanding.A written word is easily understood by the majority of people who know english.Yet when I speak to someone I can see they are churning my words to suit their interpretation.

I think it is something to do with being lost in the context of a spoken conversation and homophones being the derailer.



> A Homophone is heard in our day-to-day life in different conversations, speeches and even in television. Some of these words have three different spellings and meanings but sound absolutely the same. Words such as carat, caret and carrot or two and too are examples of Homophones. These words include homonyms, which sound the same but are spelled differently. Every human being at times confuses the terms.




For example; a border inn knew flats was maid too mussel his weigh threw a throng of reporters witch had gathered outsighed.

Yet it would be written as this; a boarder in new flats was made to muscle his way through a throng of reporters which had gathered outside.

It is refreshing talking to people that understand the english language and `hear` words in the context of the conversation.


----------



## ColB (16 August 2008)

*Originally posted by NunTheWiser*


> i wood like to take the opportoonity to thank everyone here for learning me great grammer and spelling stuff , i am doing real gooder now
> *thankyou , thankyou very much*




Elvis is alive!!


----------



## noirua (19 August 2008)

Wedecidedtogoandseeafilmintown. Oldstylecountryandwesternspaggettijunction. Loveditsomuchwewillgobackandseeitagaintomorrow. WillbreakawayfromASFfortwoeveningsquiteaneffort. Worthitallthesame.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2008)

The problem with correcting other people's grammar is that it is so easy to put your own foot in it. A few weeks back in a letter to The Australian the writer suggested to a previous correspondent that she should "take a peak in the dictionary."  Perhaps Spellcheck was to blame.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 August 2008)

not wrong Calliope lol.
Still I'd be as likely to use "peak" as "peek" under those circumctances - so thanks for mentioning it 
a) We write so little these days, letters have become brief emails etc;  and
b) when we do it it usually in the form of notes that are trivial and/or abbreviated, "back soon", "thkx", "lunch in the dishwasher" etc  

so it's good to keep reminding ourselves of this better english / spelling / word-use etc (imo) 

PROGRAM / PROGRAMME
On another subject - "more phonetic spelling" - I have to admit I (often) prefer the American spelling.  For instance, why on Earth spell  "program" "programme"?
Incidentally both lead logically into adjectives etc like "programmable" - so no problems there.

CENTER / CENTRE
I personally prefer "center" to "centre".  
Likewise I prefer "centerless-ground" to "centreless-ground"  etc

APOLOGIZE / APOLOGISE
Lazy = good, the spelling makes sense
lasy =  (??)

why then spell "apologise" when it's pronounced "apologize"?  (as spellcheck also prefers).

Think of the fantastic scores you could get in Scrabble for a start 

Incidentally, these days, writers of technical papers are asked to conform to "program" rather than "programme".  

I think we can safely say that 
" "Programme"'s days are numbered."   

Or should that be  
" "Programme's" days are numbered."? 
or even 
" "Programme's" days are numbered?" 

i.e. as usual one question leads to the next ..

or as they say in the NZ Railway Club Magazine...
“Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!”-Pope.


----------



## noirua (20 August 2008)

Zero tolerance approach to punctuation:

A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.  "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 
"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."


----------



## noirua (20 August 2008)

Everyone knows the basics of punctuation, surely?  Aren't we all taught at school how to use full stops, commas and question marks?  And yet we see ignorance and indifference everywhere.  "Its Summer" says a sign that cries out for an apostrophe. "ANTIQUE,S," says another, bizarrely. "Pansy's ready," we learn to our considerable interest ("Is she?"), as we browse among the bedding plants.


----------



## Spaghetti (20 August 2008)

All a thing of the past. I was reading a forum once where an old guy was posting. Was beautiful writing and he indented each paragraph! On a message board lol. Seemed more like art than writing. Was nice to read and I also recall looking at penmanship some years ago and lamenting it's loss. History now.

Now it is  and this  and sometimes this

We move on, not necessarily forward, but move we do.


----------



## Judd (20 August 2008)

noirua said:


> Everyone knows the basics of punctuation, surely?  Aren't we all taught at school how to use full stops, commas and question marks?  And yet we see ignorance and indifference everywhere.  "Its Summer" says a sign that cries out for an apostrophe. "ANTIQUE,S," says another, bizarrely. "Pansy's ready," we learn to our considerable interest ("Is she?"), as we browse among the bedding plants.




Ah, wonderful signs.  A few years ago, we stopped at Glenrowan in Victoria to visit the Ned Kelly museum.

One sign in the museum had on it a reference to relatives of Ned still living in the district and asked that "you respect the private property of his ancestors."

The attendant had absolutely no idea what was wrong with the statement when the error was pointed out.


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2008)

noirua said:


> Everyone knows the basics of punctuation, surely?  Aren't we all taught at school how to use full stops, commas and question marks?  And yet we see ignorance and indifference everywhere.  "Its Summer" says a sign that cries out for an apostrophe. "ANTIQUE,S," says another, bizarrely. "Pansy's ready," we learn to our considerable interest ("Is she?"), as we browse among the bedding plants.




I think many don't. I've even seem some appalling mistakes in highbrow corporate literature that nobody seems to have picked up. 

I think we are too forgiving and willing to interpret the real meaning of poor English.

Some languages won't stand for it. Germans for example will stand for nobody ####ing with their language. They will sternly correct you or just refuse to understand and they are not alone. While sometimes they go a bit far with it, I think it's a good thing. 

On the other hand, this forgiveness of English has probably been at least partly responsible for it becoming the world language... with a bit of help from Hollywood and the Internet.


----------



## Julia (20 August 2008)

noirua said:


> Everyone knows the basics of punctuation, surely?  Aren't we all taught at school how to use full stops, commas and question marks?  And yet we see ignorance and indifference everywhere.  "Its Summer" says a sign that cries out for an apostrophe. "ANTIQUE,S," says another, bizarrely. "Pansy's ready," we learn to our considerable interest ("Is she?"), as we browse among the bedding plants.



How about the fruit shops and roadside stalls which promote "banana's for sale"?
On this very forum it's sadly frequent to see apostrophes used incorrectly, especially with "its"  and "it's".


----------



## noirua (21 August 2008)

This principal of "contrast" which Elliott described as "alternation" also appears in the "reactions" or "corrective waves" against the major uptrend (or downtrend) in Waves II and IV.  Corrective waves fall into four basic categories of which the "flat" and the "zig-zag" are the most common.  The "zig-zag" is steep and sharp. The "flat" is a sideways movement that can be many months in duration.  If Wave II is a "zig-zag", it becomes highly likely that Wave IV will be "flat" and vise versa. As it happens, the "zig-zag" is most common to Wave II and the "flat" to Wave IV.  ("POWER TIMING" by Robert Beckman)


----------



## Doris (21 August 2008)

The use of 'alternate' instead of 'alternative' bugs me, especially as an English teacher!
On the Ipswich motorway is a road sign "alternate route to..."  
Every time I see it I think... no... *alternative* route.

_Alternate_ is one *then* the other.  (will I take it this time or next?)
_Alternative_ is one *instead of* the other.  (will I take it instead of the other?)


Julia, I agree with the use of the apostrophe.  Why do some people think every _S_ should be preceded by one? 

An apostrophe indicates:

* 1. a character has been omitted e.g. _don't_ ... or 
* 2. ownership applies e.g. _mango's _skin... (*its* skin has no apostrophe. *It's* applies to * 1... _it is_) ... or
* 3. to separate initials to avoid confusion when used in the plural e.g. _CD's_

*Definately* definitely is often not spelt correctly also.

Their/there/they're is another interruption to the message when not used correctly.
Here - there - everywhere: indicate a place... spelt the same.

e.g. *They're looking at their friends over there.*


----------



## Calliope (21 August 2008)

noirua said:


> Zero tolerance approach to punctuation:
> 
> A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.  "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
> "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."




It is good know that somebody supports good punctuation. The little book by Lynne Truss is well worth reading for those who are interested. Did you know that in Australian slang the definition of a wombat is "somebody who eats, roots and leaves"?


----------



## Speewha (21 August 2008)

Hello, 

Perhaps one of ASF’s resident English language experts can explain something to me. Normally words with a prefix of ‘in’ mean the opposite of words without the ‘in’ 
Such as hospitable – inhospitable, voluntary - involuntary etc. 

However we have flammable – inflammable with as we know mean the same thing. 

This has stuck in my mind as when in grade 6 I made the mistake of writing in an essay that an  inflammable substance would extinguish a fire.  I had to read out my essay to the class when I read the bit with my error, the whole class erupted in laughter.
The teacher however was not amused, and Speewha had to spend the rest of the  lesson period standing on his chair with his hand on his head, in addition he had to write out 500 times, Speewha is a very silly boy disrupting the class is not funny.  

My school was very good at punishment but it seems not very good at teaching as I still don’t know why we have flammable and inflammable meaning the same thing. 

Would appreciate assistance 

Regards


----------



## GreatPig (21 August 2008)

Doris said:


> Alternate is one then the other. (will I take it this time or next?)
> Alternative is one instead of the other. (will I take it instead of the other?)



Alternate and alternative can be used interchangeably as an adjective meaning other (eg. the alternate route / the alternative route). Alternative was originally the correct word, but alternate is used a lot and accepted now, especially in US English.

If you hunt around, you'll find people agreeing with your claim, but I think even more stating that alternate is now an acceptable alternative. 

Take a look at item 4 in this Merriam-Webster entry.

GP


----------



## GreatPig (21 August 2008)

Speewha said:


> However we have flammable – inflammable with as we know mean the same thing.



Take a look here at the section called "An alarming situation" (the fourth section).

GP


----------



## Speewha (21 August 2008)

Hello

Thanks GP, shame did not have the internet in 1966.

Regards


----------



## Timmy (21 August 2008)

Excellent question Speewha and thanks for the link GP.

I heard something on The Simpsons a few nights ago (maybe we can start a thread about taking spelling and grammar lessons from The Simpsons...).  

I before e except where the sound made sounds like an "A" (eg. neighbour).  Any comments on this from those with better spelling and grammar than me (pretty much anyone who doesn't rely on The Simpsons I suppose - but, hey, at least I didn't type The Simpson's, OK))?  I hadn't heard this rule before.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2008)

Speewha said:


> However we have flammable – inflammable with as we know mean the same thing.




Speewha, here's a definition which makes the difference clear.



> Both words mean that the object being discussed can catch on fire; the difference is in the connotations and context for which the words are used. Flammable objects are ones that are put to flame on purpose. Inflammable objects that should usually not be on fire. Adding the prefix makes it appropriate for use on warning labels. While some objects may be made for burning, such as charcoal, they may still be called inflammable if they are being sold to consumers that need to take extra caution.




You're quite right to suggest that it's confusing.

And I hope someone eventually did something nasty to your teacher who clearly lacked some pretty basic skills.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 August 2008)

Speerwha , (yep inflammable or flammable definitely mean the same thing - weird) 
 likewise ..
If asymmetric means not symmetric 
and amoral = not (about) moral  (see below)

Then does awakening = not wakening,  hence = asleep?
and asleep = not sleep? , hence  = awake 



> amoral = not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral




Likewise does 
aside = not side, hence in front?
afar = not far , hence close?
ashore = not shore, hence = at sea?
aloud = not loud , hence = quiet?

set the bells aringing = stop those bludy bells! ?


----------



## Speewha (21 August 2008)

Julia said:


> And I hope someone eventually did something nasty to your teacher who clearly lacked some pretty basic skills.




Hello,
Thanks everybody, 

Julia nothing nasty happened to the teacher, such punishments were standard issue from the Education Department’s arsenal of tortures for use on naughty boys in those days. Designed not only to inflict pain but humiliate the victim as well.  It was no use going home to complain as the teacher was always right, you just ended up with a thick ear.
Thankfully things have changed.  

I managed to grow up not adversely affected.

I see the standing on one leg routine was adopted by the US in Abu Ghriab I wonder if they got hold of a 1960’s Victorian Education department teachers guide. 

Regards


----------



## YELNATS (21 August 2008)

Timmy said:


> I heard something on The Simpsons a few nights ago (maybe we can start a thread about taking spelling and grammar lessons from The Simpsons...).
> 
> I before e except where the sound made sounds like an "A" (eg. neighbour).  Any comments on this from those with better spelling and grammar than me (pretty much anyone who doesn't rely on The Simpsons I suppose - but, hey, at least I didn't type The Simpson's, OK))?  I hadn't heard this rule before.




I don't think that "rule" works too well. Think of "receipt", no "a" sound, unless it's pronounced differently in the US.


----------



## GreatPig (21 August 2008)

Regarding the 'i' before 'e' rule, take a look at this somewhat humourous view.

GP


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2008)

In the olden days before computers and before spelling and grammar became irrevelant, if you didn't know the meaning of a word you were told to "look up your dictionary". Notice I said "your dictionary" because everybody had one. Along with pronunciation these things had an impact on your social status, ie whether you were employable or a knuckle-dragger. I had a teacher who said you could tell whether a person was gutter-bred by the way they pronounced the word "film". These days my pet hate is the pronunciation of words like "nothing" as "nothink". However I suppose it is an improvement on the Cockney version "nuffink'.


----------



## Julia (22 August 2008)

Calliope said:


> In the olden days before computers and before spelling and grammar became irrevelant, if you didn't know the meaning of a word you were told to "look up your dictionary". Notice I said "your dictionary" because everybody had one. Along with pronunciation these things had an impact on your social status, ie whether you were employable or a knuckle-dragger. I had a teacher who said you could tell whether a person was gutter-bred by the way they pronounced the word "film". These days my pet hate is the pronunciation of words like "nothing" as "nothink". However I suppose it is an improvement on the Cockney version "nuffink'.



I so agree, Calliope, about the addition of the 'k'!
Our erstwhile Premier here in Qld did this!  "Anythink", "Nothink", were standard for him.  Drove me nuts.
Another common mispronunciation is "deteriate" for "deteriorate" - they omit a whole syllable.
Grrr!


----------



## Timmy (22 August 2008)

What about the Ahlympics ...

And the opening and closing Sarah Moanies ...


----------



## GreatPig (22 August 2008)

I think a Sarah Moanie might be more exciting though. 

GP


----------



## Timmy (22 August 2008)

GreatPig said:


> I think a Sarah Moanie might be more exciting though.
> 
> GP




LOL!


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2008)

Timmy. You would have thought that it would have been easy for Channel 7 to get its commentators together before the Games and teach them how to say Olympics. But no, the bosses either didn't know or didn't care. And I have now fallen out of love with Stepanie Rice after last night when she used the awful Sarah Moanie. I could have tolerated bad language from her lips but not that.


----------



## Paladin (24 August 2008)

Julia said:


> I so agree, Calliope, about the addition of the 'k'!
> Our erstwhile Premier here in Qld did this!  "Anythink", "Nothink", were standard for him.  Drove me nuts.
> Another common mispronunciation is "deteriate" for "deteriorate" - they omit a whole syllable.
> Grrr!




The funny thing about PB though was that he really wanted to be a writer when he was a boy. Hence his sponsorship of some of the best paid literary awards in Australia. He and Matt Foley were actually genuinely committed to writing 

Penultimate to mean "really ultimate" is my personal giggle. That and people who insist on saying/writing "as per". And I notice even the announcers on radio national (of all places) are more and more often pronouncing  "junta" with the terribly anglicised jun (j as in 'jet' un as in 'unwell') rather than the older, more delicate, and to my mind correct Spanish 'hoohn'.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2008)

Interesting about PB wanting to be a writer.  He didn't lack narrative skills, i.e. he could find a spin for anything.  I just find it astonishing that one of his staff didn't take him aside and say" Listen Pete, old mate, better drop the K".

Similar to G.W. Bush (who will soon be gone, hallelujah) who has never mastered saying 'nuclear'.  
Gee whiz, it's just not that hard.  Why didn't someone just make him practise it until he stopped making a fool of himself on the world stage?


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2008)

Julia said:


> Interesting about PB wanting to be a writer.  He didn't lack narrative skills, i.e. he could find a spin for anything.  I just find it astonishing that one of his staff didn't take him aside and say" Listen Pete, old mate, better drop the K".
> 
> Similar to G.W. Bush (who will soon be gone, hallelujah) who has never mastered saying 'nuclear'.
> Gee whiz, it's just not that hard.  Why didn't someone just make him practise it until he stopped making a fool of himself on the world stage?




PB was raised by his grandmother. I'm sure she wouldn't have tolerated the "k". Mine would have given me a rap over the knuckles. And PB's wife has a Doctorate. That must count for something. Why didn't she tell him?


----------



## johenmo (25 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Speerwha , (yep inflammable or flammable definitely mean the same thing - weird)
> likewise ..
> If asymmetric means not symmetric
> and amoral = not (about) moral  (see below)
> ...





There is a distinct difference between words such as amoral/asymmetrical and words such as awakening/ashore. In words such as amoral/asymmetrical there are separate morphemes. (A morpheme being the smallest unit of meaning in language.) The first morpheme 'a' signals the meaning 'not'. The other(s) hold other meaning- eg 'moral'. 

In words like aside/afar the 'a' may also hold meaning but it doesn't mean 'not'. It's a separate unit - look at homonyms(e.g. the pool "cue" and "cue" to speak).

Incidentally meanings of *cue*:
1(n.) Humor; temper of mind.
2(n.) The tail; the end of a thing; especially, a tail-like twist of hair worn at the back of the head; a queue.
3(n.) A hint or intimation.
4(n.) The part one has to perform in, or as in, a play.
5(v. t.) To form into a cue; to braid; to twist.
6(n.) A straight tapering rod used to impel the balls in playing billiards.
7(n.) A small portion of bread or beer; the quantity bought with a farthing or half farthing.
8(n.) The last words of a play actor's speech, serving as an intimation for the next succeeding player to speak; any word or words which serve to remind a player to speak or to do something; a catchword.

The make up of words is pretty complex and doesn't necessarily follow any set pattern. 

As long as the spelling is correct, and the word is used in the right context, that's probably the best we can hope for.  The origin of spelling is interesting (to some), and if you are interested, do some linguistic papers at Uni.
Cheers


----------



## Calliope (26 August 2008)

Our great leader Kevin Rudd did not let us down. In his welcome home to our Olympic athletes this morning he managed to intersperse his usual bunch of cliches with several "ahlympics" and one "sarah moanie."


----------



## white_crane (26 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well
> for all the talk of this or that annoying people, I really like "the trend!!"
> 
> like in the old days you had to address a letter
> ...




I'm not sure if this mistake was picked up, but it is incorrect to put a period after 'Mr'.  A period is not used to signify an abbreviation if that abbreviation uses the last letter of the whole word.

Wow!  I must be bored.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2008)

white_crane said:


> I'm not sure if this mistake was picked up, but it is incorrect to put a period after 'Mr'.  A period is not used to signify an abbreviation if that abbreviation uses the last letter of the whole word.
> 
> Wow!  I must be bored.



ah touche - thanks white crane
 
still I like the trend of leaving off all such stuff, i.e. 

Mr S Tan
200 Broadway Av
WEST BEACH SA 5024 

PS as for "when to dot" and "when not to dot" abbreviations, - you'd agree I suspect that English must be a fun language to learn in your mid years  - maybe easier than written Mandarin lol  - but not much


----------



## white_crane (27 August 2008)

I've heard that the English language is one of the hardest to learn.  I would have to agree.

PS - I prefer impressionism, it's the big picture that counts.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 August 2008)

white_crane said:


> I've heard that the English language is one of the hardest to learn.  I would have to agree.



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211658&highlight=fox#post211658



> Sounds and Letters
> A poem for English students
> 
> When in English class we speak,
> ...






> Double Trouble
> A poem for English students
> by Mark Chandler
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (27 August 2008)

white_crane said:


> I've heard that the English language is one of the hardest to learn.  I would have to agree.
> 
> P



Because I don't speak any other languages, I can't really make the comparison, but as a tutor of adult literacy I'd endorse the suggestion that English is very difficult.   To those of us who have been literate from early childhood, language is completely automatic, but to adults who haven't learned to read and write for whatever reason, it's exceptionally difficult.

I've had several people (all male) who were orally very articulate but who could not even write their own name and address.  Could never fill out a form, or even read a newspaper or magazine. Libraries are places they will never go.   Such illiteracy affects every aspect of their lives and they are socially completely displaced.  

The school system doesn't help.  They will push people up into the next grade even when they have failed dismally.


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2008)

Having fairly poor sight which was discovered fairly late in my school years, and being a typical young male and refusing to wear glasses at school, I did most of my reading by recognizing the word's shape.

In that way, it was like learning to read and write in oriental pictographs, rather than analyzing the actual spelling. Consequently, phonetic spelling (or lack thereof) has never been a difficulty for me.

I suspect many learn the same way, sans poor eyesight, without really realizing it.

Maybe written English can be taught this way?

Just a thought.


----------



## ghotib (28 August 2008)

Julia, where does that distinction between flammable and inflammable come from? If it's an Australian source I think it might be a post-facto justification; it's certainly not a widely understood distinction. I remember the change from "inflammable" to "flammable" on warning labels in NSW, though I don't remember when it happened. At the time I thought "flammable" was a government invention, but it appeared in the language some time in the 19th century. "inflammable" dates from around 1600. The mandated change was not because of the real meaning, but because these days warnings in English need to make sense to people who aren't familiar with Latin. Using "flammable" reduces the opportunity for confusion.

I still don't like it, but for a life-saving message I guess I can live with it.

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib (28 August 2008)

Have we mentioned "outside of" yet? Australia seems to have adopted this from America in less than 10 years. It's everywhere now. Still sounds odd to me: if the athletes wait outside of the stadium, why don't they walk through of the tunnel and stand on of the podium? Or maybe they do???

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (28 August 2008)

Ghoti, don't now remember where it came from, sorry.
I agree that it's less than helpful.

Re "outside of", I haven't heard this, but I've always been puzzled by the way Americans say "off of".  i.e. 'Smith Street runs off of Jones Street'.


----------



## Doris (28 August 2008)

Julia said:


> I've always been puzzled by the way Americans say "off of".  i.e. 'Smith Street runs off of Jones Street'.




Julia, I've always been puzzled the way Americans (and Canuks) say 'bring' where we say 'take'.

e.g. when you come visit, I'll bring you to a new restaurant... it's so fun.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2008)

LOL

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sco-revises-grammar-manages-make-blunder.html


> English lesson: Tesco revises its grammar, but still manages to make a blunder
> 
> By Lucy Ballinger
> Last updated at 12:11 PM on 01st September 2008
> ...


----------



## Timmy (6 September 2008)

Just been reminded.

When you are standing in a line for something (like the checkout at the supermarket, or to see a teller at a bank) you are standing in a queue, not a cue.


----------



## Calliope (1 October 2008)

I am beginning to doubt the credibility of Ross Garnaut. For somebody who can't make the effort to check on how to pronounce Copenhagen, you would wonder if he has checked his sums.

It is not *-hargen*, unless you are a German.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 October 2008)

Calliope said:


> I am beginning to doubt the credibility of Ross Garnaut. For somebody who can't make the effort to check on how to pronounce Copenhagen, you would wonder if he has checked his sums.
> 
> It is not *-hargen*, unless you are a German.




jees Calliope - lol

"C'est la vie"

PS pronounced
"cesst lar vee"


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> jees Calliope - lol
> 
> "C'est la vie"
> 
> ...




Say la vee is the correct pronunciation 2020.

Ref ; http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/c'est la vie and beside the phrase is a pronunciation symbol.

Have a great day, wyg.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 October 2008)

probably depends how you pronounce "dance" wys? lol

PS calliope will have to get that Danny Kaye song re-recorded as well 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbbg0k4Xeo&feature=related

PS In Danish it's apparently "long a" :- KÃ¸benhavn.


----------



## Duckman#72 (1 October 2008)

ghotib said:


> Julia, where does that distinction between flammable and inflammable come from?  At the time I thought "flammable" was a government invention, but it appeared in the language some time in the 19th century. "inflammable" dates from around 1600.
> Ghoti




Hi Guys

The comment from ghotib regarding "inflammable" dating back to 1600 was timely for me as I'm currently reading Bill Bryson's biography on William Shakespeare. 

According to the author, Shakespeare is directly responsible for bringing to the English language approximately 650 words (and unofficially many hundreds more). That is to say, words first used by Shakepeare that up until that time in history had not been recorded. Words such as "unmask" and "inflammable". He has been credited with "inventing" a staggeringly high percentage of the words in usage at that time. 

When you consider that the vocabulary of the English was much smaller back then, you can begin to appreciate what an extraordinary effort it was. 

Just another couple of pieces of trivum - it is remarkable but very little is actually known about Shakespeare. We are unsure of the correct spelling of his name, as it was done several different ways. There are only two days in history when his whereabouts can be confirmed (court documents where he was witness to a crime). Even the portrait of Shakespeare cannot be authenticated. 

Duckman


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 October 2008)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sco-revises-grammar-manages-make-blunder.html




It amazes me the number of people who say "less" instead of "fewer".

How hard is it? We never confuse "much" or "many" so why less and fewer?


----------



## Julia (1 October 2008)

This one infuriates me, too, Snake.  As does "each other" when it should be "one another" and vice versa.  Grr!

And don't expect it to get better.  Today's teachers are some of the worst offenders.  My neighbour is a high school teacher.  She says "we should of went there."


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 October 2008)

Julia said:


> This one infuriates me, too, Snake.  As does "each other" when it should be "one another" and vice versa.  Grr!
> 
> And don't expect it to get better.  Today's teachers are some of the worst offenders.  *My neighbour is a high school teacher.  She says "we should of **went there*."




I can back that up with the fact that in my field there is a culture of "dumb-down" developing.From supervisors to layperson there is poor communication, misleading directions, bad practices and incorrect terminology being perpetuated.

For what reason I do not know and more to the point which social structure has set the "dumb-down" process in motion?

Without straying off topic too much are there any reasons not seen?


----------



## Michael9 (1 October 2008)

Dumbing down happens when policy and process become codified to the point when individual self-reliance and initiative become unnecessary. Organisations then run around with tick box and criteria sheets which become and end in themselves (reified) e.g., performance appraisal processes, rubrics, ISO documents etc.
Anyway, something you might all like for the kids is my way of teaching a very basic grammar. I put this together in the mid-eighties when I was teaching in Colorado on exchange. Post-modernists won't like it but but they can play with their indexical signifiers while we get on with it. I use nine parts of speech. I tell kids every word you'll say, hear or see is one of these. I use the mnemonic CANVAPPIA (think of an pizza). Conjunction, Adverb, Noun, Verb, Adjective,Pronoun,Preposition, Interjection,Article. In order: C:Joining word, A:adds meaning to verbs, adjectives and other adverbs (very,very hot), N:naming word, V:doing word, A:describing word, P:takes the place of nouns, P;shows the relationship between objects, I:what you shout when you hit your thumb with a hammer ... you know, gosh, golly or whoops!, A:article, of which there are only three; a, an and the (indefinite and definite, sometimes also called indicaticative adjectives). 
If you're keen, you can "rap" these with the kids. I don't know how to express the timing but I put the words of CANVAPPIA together in such a way that you can clap your hands as you're saying the words and it makes a sort of spoken song. (The word interjection may need some syncopation to squeeze it in.) That way they get to remember them. Then there's all the fun of unpacking the types of words and going deeper as you drill down into the many classifications of adverbs, adjectives and nouns. 

May I indulge in a language joke? A professor of language is harumpphing on in a lecture about the possibility of a negative and a positive forming a negative in Urdu and a positive and a negative possibly forming a positive in Pashtan but "nowhere is there an example where two posiives make a negative" ... from up the back a broad Australian accent interjects, "Yeah, right!"

Outside Bungendore I saw a sign the other day which said "Bargains. Up to half price off!" It unsettled me.

Bill Bryson's books on English are worth a read especially The Mother Tongue.

Sometime I have small daydreams about using CANVAPPIA as part of teaching grammar privately so I'd like to keep some sense of ownership of it if that's OK. Very happy if it's useful for kids and grandkids though. 

PS Ghotib .... is this "fishb"?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 October 2008)

Michael9 said:


> .. I:what you shout when you hit your thumb with a hammer ... you know, gosh, golly or whoops!....



CANVAPPIA... good one thanks ..

but maybe that should be CANVAPPFA?  



> A professor of language is harumpphing on in a lecture about the possibility of a negative and a positive forming a negative in Urdu and a positive and a negative possibly forming a positive in Pashtan but "nowhere is there an example where two posiives make a negative" ... from up the back a broad Australian accent interjects, "Yeah, right!"




yeah right lol. 

Like an Indian gentleman beside me on the plane once... international flight from Singapore I think - anyway , he said he was going down the back to check  if there were any empty seats.  - like - to stretch out and sleep - 

he came back and told me "it's full".
but he went back there anyway. 
Later on I went back, and there he was stretched out - and there were still rows of seats spare.  

So I challenged him ' - "Hey, you told be it was full!"

His reply .. " yes, I am telling you it was full - full of empty seats !!"


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 October 2008)

Julia said:


> This one infuriates me, too, Snake.  As does "each other" when it should be "one another" and vice versa.  Grr!
> 
> And don't expect it to get better.  Today's teachers are some of the worst offenders.  My neighbour is a high school teacher.  She says "we should of went there."




Yes Julia.

How about when people say "nothing" instead of "anything".

I could go on and on about this.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

well I wish they'd stop saying "Mr Rudd overseas everything that's going on in Canberra"


----------



## Michael9 (2 October 2008)

A word I find interesting is "sanction". We impose economic sanctions denoting a negative sense of the word and yet we sanction someone's behaviour, implying permission and approval. Anyone with an explanation?


----------



## Julia (2 October 2008)

It is interesting.  Good point to raise.

Here is what the Free Dictionary says:



> sanc·tion (sngkshn)
> n.
> 1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
> 2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
> ...



Doesn't answer the question, though, of why there are two almost opposing definitions.


----------



## Spanning Tree (2 October 2008)

Remember how Hitler went on about how superior the blonde and blue-eyed people were while he himself was a short and dark man? Well, Grammer Nazis also need to practice what they preach.



> *ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning.* As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it.




Do you know about comma splices? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_splice

The comma there should either be a semicolon or a period.



> But it's possessive, so it should be people's literacy like the People's Republic of China.
> 
> Adjudicator!



It's "People's Republic of China," not "Peoples' Republic of China." You use peoples' only if you want to talk about peoples and their possessions, e.g. "I live in Indiginous peoples' land."

This is referring to many indiginous peoples.



> I don't actually think *its* that hard. My view is that the education system has let people down and it seems to be getting worse. The spelling and grammar of those on ASF who are under 30 is noticably worse than that of those who are over 30.



Do you know the difference between it's and its? The latter is possessive while the former is the contraction. By the way, I'm 24.



> However, as always, there are rules within rules. The simple example is committee. That is a collective but when you are discussing, say, a decision of a single committee it is the "P&C Committee's decision" whereas, if you were discussing decisions of a group of them it would be "P&C Committees decisions."
> 
> Easy as, don't you think?



If there is one committee it should be "P&C Committee's decision." If it is a group of them it would be "P&C Committees' decisions." Notice the apostrophe.



> I do agree with you Joe, that people are losing (or is that loosing) the art of the language. *And* texting will further encourage loss of grammatical skills.
> 
> I shudder at spelling mistakes on television, even on the ABC! *And* in books *-* the errors jump out from the text almost to the detriment of reading the story.
> 
> *But* the idiosyncracies of the English language has (some might say have?) contributed to the process.



Some modern people will disagree, but most English language traditionalists believe you cannot start a sentence with conjunctions like "and" or "but," etc.

See http://editingpublishing.suite101.com/article.cfm/can_i_start_a_sentence_with_and_

Furthermore, you use a dash when it would be more appropriate to use a comma.




> I was lucky. As soon as I was old enough to hold a book up one was shoved into my hands by my mother and compulsive reading as a child and a teenager followed naturally. When you read a lot, words that are spelled incorrectly just 'look' wrong. You see the word as a whole rather than just a sequence of letters. I owe my level of literacy solely to a love of reading. *I don't believe language and literacy is taught effectively in schools.*



Should that be, "I don't believe language and literacy *are* taught effectively in schools"?


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

Spanning Tree said:


> Should that be, "I don't believe language and literacy *are* taught effectively in schools"?



or maybe 
"I don't believe "language and literacy" *is* taught effectively in *school*"

Hey tree, I agree with you 
I don't believe language and literacy should be taught in school either. 

(sorry m8 - just a pisstake -  you make some good points there). cheerz


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 October 2008)

Michael9 said:


> A word I find interesting is "sanction". We impose economic sanctions denoting a negative sense of the word and yet we sanction someone's behaviour, implying permission and approval. Anyone with an explanation?




The first one is a noun and the second one is a verb.

Synonyms: permission (n) and approve (v). If you are talking about the words' meaning rather than grammar, why does it mean permit and penalize, and permission and penalty? 

From Julia's post: 


> sanc·tion (sngkshn)
> n.
> 1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
> 2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> or maybe
> "I don't believe "language and literacy" *is* taught effectively in *school*"




The Bed and Breakfast were situated at Tin Pot Bay. 

Romeo and Juliet are taught in schools.


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> If you are talking about the words' meaning rather than grammar...




One inaccuracy, that always screams out at me, is the use of an apostrophe for plurals:

Thus, the correct grammar would be: 

- about the words' meaning*s*, rather than grammar. _or_
- about the word's meaning, rather than grammar.

It reminds me of: _These kind of things_ should be: 

- This kind of thing _or_
- These kinds of things

... all plural _or_ all singular.


----------



## Julia (2 October 2008)

Spanning Tree said:


> Some modern people will disagree, but most English language traditionalists believe you cannot start a sentence with conjunctions like "and" or "but," etc.



That's quite true, Spanning Tree, but we seem to now find it acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction where it adds meaning and emphasis to what is being said.

I'm pretty much a pedant and a traditionalist, but I do start sentences with 'And' or "But' sometimes.  

Well said about the use of apostrophes.   This is probably the most misused symbol in the whole language.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (2 October 2008)

Doris said:


> One inaccuracy, that always screams out at me, is the use of an apostrophe for plurals:
> 
> Thus, the correct grammar would be:
> 
> ...




Thanks Doris!

These kind of things, *which* should be: ................

Cheers...


----------



## Calliope (2 October 2008)

I'm afraid good grammar and correct spelling are a dead giveaway as to a person's age. I wonder if anyone under the age of 60 has ever cracked the covers of MEU.


----------



## white_crane (2 October 2008)

Language, like most things, evolves over time - we don't talk the same way as in Shakespearean times.  Also, language changes according to the situation - you don't talk the same to your mates as you would to someone you just met.  

I don't think that everyone expects you to talk like an English language graduate, but a reasonable level of correct spelling and grammar should be expected.

Personally, I have no qualms regarding the issue of sentences starting with and, but etc., if it is a literary work.  Freedom of expression I say.

Extra: Try reading some of Henry James' works.  One sentence can sometimes take up half a page!


----------



## GreatPig (2 October 2008)

Doris said:


> Thus, the correct grammar would be:
> 
> - about the words' meaning*s*, rather than grammar. _or_
> - about the word's meaning, rather than grammar.



Not necessarily. "Meaning" here is a noun and would only be plural if there was more than one meaning. It doesn't matter whether the noun or pronoun before it is singular or plural.

Try rearranging the sentence:

If you are talking about the meaning of the words rather than the grammar.

And you can easily substitute the plural pronoun "their" for "the words":

If you are talking about their meaning rather than their spelling.

Same with any other possessive:

The children's holiday (one holiday for multiple children)
The employees' superannuation (superannuation for employees)
The housemates' dormitory (one dormitory for multiple housemates)

GP


----------



## rederob (2 October 2008)

It's Snake Oilskin said:


> Thanks Doris!
> 
> These kinds of things, *which* should be: ................
> 
> Cheers...



"Kind of" is redundant.
"Which" is redundant.
The comma is unnecessary.

But it does not matter if we all knew what was intended.
An interesting aside is the use of bullet points.
Convention dictates that lists follow a colon.

But do you think it necessary if

bullets clearly separate each point from the introductory statement
we don't need semicolons between points
we don't need to capitalise each starting word
we don't need the last point to conclude with a period
Doris's above post mixes styles in her dot points and breaks rules of grammar with periods rather than commas.  But nothing is lost.  It just shows that we can do things in many different ways.

By the way, pedants will be wondering how the introductory statement poses a question, yet no questionmark is used in the bulleted list.


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Thanks Doris!
> 
> These kind of things, *which* should be: ................
> 
> Cheers...




Good try SP!


But I put 'kind of things' in italics, making it the subject, thus the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier and *does not require the 'which' nor the comma.*

"the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier"


If I said "the subject is a nonrestrictive modifier", I wouldn't need the commas as removing "of this" makes the noun (the word 'subject') a restrictive modifier.

My adding "of this" makes it specific that I'm referring to 'this' particular 'subject'.


Make sense?  That's what language is basically about... communicating. 

I'm also reminded that when you have one negative, it should be followed by a second in the context:

"does not require the 'which' nor the comma."

- - rather than: 'does not require the 'which' or the comma.'

Just thought: 
I said - 'If I said':

If I were to have said 'If I were to have said' instead, I would have needed the 'were' as it is always a plural verb after the imaginary 'if'.

Love the English language!


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

Julia said:


> That's quite true, Spanning Tree, but we seem to now find it acceptable to begin a sentence with a conjunction where it adds meaning and emphasis to what is being said.
> 
> I'm pretty much a pedant and a traditionalist, but I do start sentences with 'And' or "But' sometimes.




The word "but" is one of the seven coordinating conjunctions:

and
but
or
nor
for
so
yet

Coordinating conjunctions are used to join words, phrases, and clauses that are balanced as logical equals.

It's quite correct (I didn't say OK  ) to start a 'casual language' sentence with one if it joins two logical ideas.
But it must be a complete sentence to be grammatically correct. 

Actually, when you use 'and' or 'but' as conjunctions within a sentence, you do not need a comma to show a pause before this word:

Julia began her work on time, and finished it.
And Kris began her work late, but didn't finish it.

A lot of American authors use a comma here but proppa English writers don't!


----------



## doogie_goes_off (2 October 2008)

But I would never start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, because it is very poor english, right down there with dropping words, (I) do it all the time. Dropping these words creates a lack of person (third/first etc) and can confuse tense. As we write more emails we get lazy and my posts here are guilty of this regularly. And I am eternally sorry (sic).


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

Doris said:


> ...But I put 'kind of things' in italics, making it the subject, thus the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier and *does not require the 'which' nor the comma.*



jeez doris !!  ... bags not argueing grammar with you !!

It would be like Biden vs Palin - but in reverse lol.  

(PS I've personally never heard of a restrictive modifier, ... let alone a nonrestrictive one  )



doogie_goes_off said:


> But I would never start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, because it is very poor english...



And never would I doogie


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

rederob said:


> "Kind of" is redundant.
> "Which" is redundant.
> The comma is unnecessary.




I've explained the 'which and the comma' above.

However, 'kind of' is necessary to indicate part of a common grouping that is being identified:


 these kinds of clothes should not be worn;
 these types of cars should not be on this road;
 this type of bird is extinct (e.g. large flightless);
 this type of behavior is unacceptable here.

It's OK to use a semi-colon as it indicates there are more examples to follow, then end with a period.
But in computer typing they have become redundant.  Much neater without them!


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

Spanning Tree said:


> It's "People's Republic of China," not "Peoples' Republic of China." You use peoples' only if you want to talk about peoples and their possessions, e.g. "I live in Indiginous peoples' land."
> 
> This is referring to many indiginous peoples.




You're correct on the Chinese example.

* Indigenous people's land is land held by one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' land is land held by more than one type of race.
* Indigenous peoples' lands are two or more areas of land and held by more than one race.



white_crane said:


> Extra: Try reading some of Henry James' works.  One sentence can sometimes take up half a page!




Is he a lawyer by trade?


----------



## Julia (2 October 2008)

Ah Doris, we just need to clone you and get 10,000 of the result into our schools.  There might then be just a chance of turning out some students who can put a reasonable sentence together.
Goodonya.

Thinking a little more about the use of punctuation, and starting sentences with a conjunction, perhaps we do this rather more on the internet where we are limited to seeing the words on the screen, missing out on the communication we experience in face to face or even just audio contact.
It's much easier for misunderstanding and hurt feelings to occur with just the visual textso maybe some rules of grammar are bent to enhance the communication.


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> jeez doris !!  ... bags not argueing grammar with you !!
> 
> It would be like Biden vs Palin - but in reverse lol.
> 
> ...




lol

As long as you're not arguing spelling. lol.
Twelve hours to go 2020!
Note I spelt words fewer than 100.

Julia, note I used 'fewer' for numbers and not 'less'. 

Ever notice how the Americans say 'farther' when referring to distance (very good English) 
 - whereas most Aussies say 'further'?


Great job Great Pig!


----------



## Doris (2 October 2008)

Julia did you hear the survey results (yesterday?) which showed that infants reared by their grandparents (and not Day Care), speak better and are more emotionally and socially stable?

My 75 yo neighbour complained to me, yesterday, about the behaviour of one of her grandchildren.  He hid the key to the quad bike so his brother couldn't find it and have a ride. When I asked if she'd told her son, she said she didn't want to interfere.  If only grandparents could use their wisdom more wisely.

My grandson is six and keeps saying, "Grandma, do you know what I done today?"  
His mother speaks perfect English and is finding it very hard to change this.  
I keep telling him: Today I do, yesterday I did, I *have* done.
*But* he's not corrected at school and the other kids say this, so it persists.  
Big cuddle when he says it correctly! 

2020... notice I didn't use a comma after 'infants':

_which showed that infants reared by their grandparents, speak better _
It's a nonrestrictive modifier.  'Infants' and 'grandparents' are both essential to the meaning - the subject!

* notice I used commas:

_complained to me, yesterday, about..._
That's a restrictive modifier.  If you take out the words between the commas it still makes sense and the meaning of the sentence is not affected.

Which reminds me:
Some people have that *effect* on you.
But you can *affect* them too.
Yet if they can *effect* a change then well and good!


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 October 2008)

Doris said:


> You're correct on the Chinese example.
> 
> * Indigenous people's land is land held by one type of race.
> * Indigenous peoples' land is land held by more than one type of race.
> ...




Hello Doris, I find the use of apostophes for contractions quite a universally  accepted practice but I think an apostrophe trailing plurals  make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.


----------



## Nimbin (2 October 2008)

Mazrox said:


> "people" is already plural? ...you would say "the children's smiles", not "the childrens' smiles"



yes... But both people's and peoples' are correct, they just mean "belonging to the people", and "belonging to the peoples" respectively. I think Joe meant the former, so "people's" it should be


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 October 2008)

"Rarely is the question asked .."Is our children learning?" " 

"We find out that the illiteracy level of our children are appalling" !! 

"A literate country, and a hopefuler country" 

 George Bush Idiot Quotes


----------



## wayneL (2 October 2008)

Will bush pass the baton to Palin?

Will we get a book of Palinisms?


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hello Doris, I find the use of apostophes for contractions quite a universally  accepted practice but I think an apostrophe trailing plurals  make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.




I correct myself here (blushes slightly) as I didn`t fully understand possessive nouns.I still think they are used to compensate for poor sentence structure yet handy for oral communication.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (3 October 2008)

Doris said:


> Good try SP!
> 
> 
> But I put 'kind of things' in italics, making it the subject, thus the subject, of this, is a nonrestrictive modifier and *does not require the 'which' nor the comma.*
> ...




Doris,

Thanks for your time taken to type the above.

Regards


----------



## Doris (3 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I correct myself here (blushes slightly) as I didn`t fully understand possessive nouns. I still think they are used to compensate for poor sentence structure yet handy for oral communication.




I took this to mean the use of apostrophes made the USE of written words hard to comprehend when the apostrophe is in the wrong place.

*But* what did you mean by: 'used to compensate for poor sentence structure'?



Wysiwyg said:


> I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for poor sentence structure and more precisely, poor word choice.




Just as:  "_I think an apostrophe trailing plurals make up for_"

Did you mean: 

 * I think an apostrophe, trailing plurals, make*S* up for... or:

 * I think (delete 'an') apostrophe-trailing plurals make up for... 


Reminds me of an example I use with students as a punctuation exercise:

Woman.  Without her, man is nothing!
Woman without her man, is nothing.


----------



## Doris (3 October 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Doris,
> 
> Thanks for your time taken to type the above.
> 
> Regards




Thanks SP. I appreciate your passion for words.  
I have ONE DAY left of holidays then back to the testosterone infected males!  
... and the amygdala infected females.
I earn my living with adolescents. Lovitt.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 October 2008)

Doris said:


> I took this to mean the use of apostrophes made the USE of written words hard to comprehend when the apostrophe is in the wrong place.




To me  I think it is sentence structure that should be used sparingly.If sentences were to surround possessive nouns in regular written format I would not read because they grate like finger-nails on a chalk-board and slip off the page like spaghetti.  

Thank-you for helping out with grammar as I  do like to improve this side of typing and writing.My spelling is very good.

Anyone have a rule on hyphenating words?


----------



## wayneL (3 October 2008)

Doris said:


> ... and the amygdala infected females.



Is that a venereal disease? :


----------



## Doris (3 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> To me
> 
> Anyone have a rule on hyphenating words?




This is a good site:  

http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm

This is good but not as easily interpreted:

http://essayinfo.com/sguides/hyphen.php


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 October 2008)

Finger-nails I would write fingernails because they are specifically nails on the fingers and chalk-board I would write chalkboard because it is not a chalk (mineral) board but a board for writing on with chalk.Blackboard is more widely accepted.

Thank-you stays the same because it is a note of thanks and directed specifically to one person.


----------



## rederob (3 October 2008)

Doris said:


> I've explained the 'which and the comma' above.
> 
> However, 'kind of' is necessary to indicate part of a common grouping that is being identified:



Where the subject is contextualised I agree.
However too often we have to assume the nature of a grouping.
Specifying the "kind" reduces error in interpretation of group and more sharply focuses the intended sense.
For example
"Hooning won't be tolerated."
Or
"This kind of behaviour won't be tolerated."

From a grammatical perspective compound nouns of assemblage are ugly.


----------



## noirua (3 October 2008)

Hesitation and stammering are indicated by hyphens:"I reached for the w-w-w-watering can."


----------



## Calliope (3 October 2008)

I recently asked my 15 year old grandson whether he had read any good books lately. His answer; 

"Yeah, the TV guide"


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Anyone have a rule on hyphenating words?




For instance ...
John Wayne hollered "It's noon! DRAW, you purple nosed, red necked, yellow spined, **** eyed, lilly livered, varmint!".

now he isn't calling the varmit a lilly, but his liver - 
so it sorta makes more sense when you hyperventilate - or whatever the word is 

John Wayne hollered "It's noon!  DRAW, you purple-nosed, red-necked, yellow-spined, ****-eyed, lilly-livered, varmint!".

or maybe that should be "lilly-livid varmint"  

Heck, all I know is that every rule seems to have an exception ...  



> TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with 'I.'
> MILLIE: I is..
> TEACHER: No, Millie..... Always say, 'I am.'
> MILLIE: All right... 'I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.'


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 October 2008)

wys ... how about this one 

The pommie tourist crawled into the Birdsvile Pub like a purple-nosed, lobster-faced, puce-necked, plum-exhausted Rainbow Serpent.  

Not sure why plums get exhausted , but  there ya go


----------



## noirua (4 October 2008)

When a hyphenated phrase is coming up, and you are qualifying it beforehand, it is necessary to write, "He was a two- or three-year-old."


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

noirua said:


> When a hyphenated phrase is coming up, and you are qualifying it beforehand, it is necessary to write, "He was a two- or three-year-old."



My thoughts are that the hyphen is redundant after "two" as the sense is retained and carried into the correctly hyphenated subject, ie a three-year-old.

Hyphens serve to create or convey a single sense, and allay confusion.  For example, "re-sign" without the hyphen is the complete opposite sense.

Back to the example.  It is better stated as, "He was two or three years old."
We can test the sense:
"How old was the boy?"
"He was two or three."
Or
"Two or three years old."


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 October 2008)

noirua said:


> When a hyphenated phrase is coming up, and you are qualifying it beforehand, it is necessary to write, "He was a *two- or *three-year-old."




Noirua,
Why would you want to join two and or?Why is it qualifying three-year-old?
It is uncommon.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Noirua,
> Why would you want to join two and or?Why is it qualifying three-year-old?
> It is uncommon.



well, wys 
 I also reckon it's  "two- or three-year-old."
reason :- parallel construction. (clarification / reinforcement of same in this case) .  But sometimes it can be two different meanings (imho) 
eg :-

a) After she fell down the steps, the nun was black and blue and red-faced.

b) After she fell down the steps, the nun was black- and blue- and red-faced.

i.e. do the bruises on this colourful lady extend beyond her face or don't they ?..


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well, wys
> I also reckon it's  "two- or three-year-old."
> reason :- parallel construction. (clarification / reinforcement of same in this case) .  But sometimes it can be two different meanings (imho)
> eg :-
> ...




Poor sentence structure 2020.

Let`s look at it a different way ...

After she fell down the stairs, the nun was bruised and embarrassed.

You could then follow with an injury and emotion description if deemed necessary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Poor sentence structure 2020.
> 
> Let`s look at it a different way ...
> 
> ...




lol - okay okay ... you win 

PS but maybe the nun was black and blue because (imagine Michael Jackson in reverse) God decided to make her an Afro-American with a bout of depression?


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> lol - okay okay ... you win





I could possibly do without the comma so as to get the sentence "flowing".When wanted, reading and writing should "flow" in my opinion.

Reading beautifully constructed sentences now and then is a delight compared to the overly punctuated (you know what I mean) structure more evident these days.


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well, wys
> I also reckon it's  "two- or three-year-old."
> reason :- parallel construction. (clarification / reinforcement of same in this case) .  But sometimes it can be two different meanings (imho)



In this case the boy was "either or".
He was a two-year-old, or a three-year-old.
He cannot be both at the same time.
If the hyphen does not add to meaning/sense/clarity then it is redundant.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I could possibly do without the comma so as to get the sentence "flowing".When wanted, reading and writing should "flow" in my opinion.
> 
> Reading beautifully constructed sentences now and then is a delight compared to the overly punctuated (you know what I mean) structure more evident these days.




yep and any five- or six-year-old should be taught exactly that. 

PS I still like that one ...

 "Eventually the Bed and Breakfast were found, hidden amongst the mangroves at the far end of the cove"


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> "Eventually the Bed and Breakfast *were* found, hidden amongst the mangroves at the *far* end of the cove"




Not wishing to seem like a parent here but if BnB is plural then were.Otherwise was.Is there a `far` end, a `near`end, a middle `end` or just an end?


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Not wishing to seem like a parent here but if BnB is plural then were.Otherwise was.




Sorry it was in response to "Literacy and Langauge is taught in most schools." being called obviously wrong.

I was just thinking that that's not necessarily wrong - Devil's Avocado whatever.  



rederob] If the hyphen does not add to meaning/sense/clarity then it is redundant. [/QUOTE]
rob said:


> This is a good site:
> http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm




Lol - Hyphens help to differentiate between different meanings eg  .... 



> "I want my money back - you told me this was a "dirty-movie theater",
> 
> No I didn't , I told you my theater was a "dirty movie-theater".


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Is there a `far` end, a `near`end, a middle `end` or just an end?



lol - The Irish defence 

reminds me of this one ...



> Pipe Regulations
> 
> 1.All pipe is to be made of a long hole, surrounded by metal or plastic centred around the hole.
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> So should you have a hyphen after "light"?
> "The half-baked son-in-law was both light- and butter-fingered".



No.
The sense is not altered by adding a hyphen.
Unless you thought the son-in-law was fluorescing!


----------



## Doris (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I still like that one ...
> 
> "Eventually the Bed and Breakfast were found, hidden amongst the mangroves at the far end of the cove"






Wysiwyg said:


> Not wishing to seem like a parent here but if BnB is plural then were.Otherwise was.Is there a `far` end, a `near`end, a middle `end` or just an end?




Hmmm 

When you write Bed and Breakfast you do *not* need italics *nor* quotation marks to indicate it is a single subject.

Capitalizing the words suffices so the reader comprehends.

2020's "Eventually the bed and breakfast were found, hidden amongst the mangroves at the far end of the cove" 

...would thus no longer be humorous. 

Wysiwyg - with your innate passion for flow of words, have you considered writing short stories for magazines?

I have a friend who, as a hobby, did this. He used a female pseudo and wrote for women's magazines.
He is now a screenwriter, for American producers, working from Adelaide.
Previous to this, he owned and MD'd a listed company - still a major shareholder.

Hmmm... looking at flow of words: 

* When you are building apprehensive tension, the words and sentences should be short.
-  or if you're intending the topic to be focused or highlighted.
* If you are creating an emotive or visual development they will be longer.
-  intending the topic to be encapsulated/integrated.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

rederob said:


> No.
> The sense is not altered by adding a hyphen.
> Unless you thought the son-in-law was fluorescing!




well rederob, again we disagree..  (I think the hyphen is essential) ...

You say it's ok to say :-
"The half-baked son-in-law was both light and butter-fingered".

I would say that means something completely different .... (or ambiguous at best).  i.e.  I reckon it means the opposite (in part) of ..

"The half-baked son-in-law was both overweight and butter-fingered". 

No biggie - let's not start calling each other names over this lol.



			
				doris said:
			
		

> When you write Bed and Breakfast you do not need italics nor quotation marks to indicate it is a single subject.
> 
> Capitalizing the words suffices so the reader comprehends.



mmm
you sure ? 
So what about :-

Literature and Language was taught in schools.    ?

If it's one subject, I would always take the safe option and add quotation marks :-

"Literature and Language" was taught in schools.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

What's another word for synonym?  

or thesaurus for that matter?

btw, Did you know that "gullible" is not in the dictionary?


----------



## rederob (4 October 2008)

2020
When you used "both" in your sentence it is implicit that a sense is shared with "fingered".
If you want to separate the sense of "weight" from "butter-fingered" you do not use "both" in the sentence, thus:

The half-baked son-in-law was overweight and butter-fingered.


----------



## Julia (4 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well rederob, again we disagree..  (I think the hyphen is essential) ...



I'm with Rederob on this.  The extra hyphen is superfluous and looks a bit silly.




> So what about :-
> 
> Literature and Language was taught in schools.    ?
> 
> ...



If I read this I'd assume you were referring to the name of a particular course taught in schools.   I'm not sure that it's necessary, but if that is the context then I'd agree with you that enclosing it in quotation marks makes the meaning clearer.  And then, yes, of course you would say "was taught".


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 October 2008)

well I'm with noi ...  who started all this with his post..



> When a hyphenated phrase is coming up, and you are qualifying it beforehand, it is necessary to write, "He was a two- or three-year-old."




Incidentally, Wiki agrees with us   (well doesn't disagree at least, lol) 
(PS the entire hyphen matter seems to be amazingly optional) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen



> Suspended hyphens
> A suspended hyphen (also referred to as a "hanging hyphen" or "dangling hyphen") may be used when a single base word is used with separate, consecutive, hyphenated words which are connected by "and", "or", or "to".
> 
> For example, "nineteenth-century and twentieth-century" may be written as
> ...




Die Luft ist kÃ¼hl und es dunkelt,
Und ruhig flieÃŸt der Rhein;
Der Gipfel des Berges funkelt,
Im Abend- unt/oder Morgen-sonnenschein.


----------



## white_crane (5 October 2008)

No wonder people think the English language should be simplified.


----------



## noirua (5 October 2008)

noirua said:


> When a hyphenated phrase is coming up, and you are qualifying it beforehand, it is necessary to write, "He was a two- or three-year-old."




The above came from Lynne Truss, who is a renowned expert on the English language. It is correct.

There is a school of thought that advises, "where ever reasonable", the hyphen should be dropped, and the more recent Oxford Dictionary suggests it is heading for extinction.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

Well I must be old fashioned 
Most certainly I would include a hyphen here for example (and I would argue it is crazy not to) :- 

*The ancient Roman bridge was a magnificent example of an efficient military sub- and superstructure construction. * 

i.e. " example of an efficient military sub and superstructure construction..". just doesn't look right to my eye.   i.e. did the Romans make submarines ?


----------



## rederob (5 October 2008)

noirua said:


> The above came from Lynne Truss, who is a renowned expert on the English language. It is correct.
> 
> There is a school of thought that advises, "where ever reasonable", the hyphen should be dropped, and the more recent Oxford Dictionary suggests it is heading for extinction.



Truss was a sports journalist who wrote a book on punctuation that became a best seller.  She is not a grammarian nor any sort of expert on English language or writing.

The core of this thread is "lessons".
These differ markedly across English speaking nations.
I always "capitalise" after a colon: (sic) Americans do not not.
I place commas and periods outside quotation marks and Americans do not.

I use as little "punctuation" as possible.
Indeed, with technology it is possible to punctuate using only the style formats of software:
*y*ou see no capitals *n*o periods *a*nd emphasis _where _and _how _i choose *b*ecause reading is a visual form if the rules are consistent we will process them into our learning and retain them as we progress *t*hus this sentence began in lower case bold *b*ut you already know that *s*o long as we are consistent in what we do others will have little difficulty following *t*his breaks down only when long and complex sentences are used *h*owever good writing can and should avoid that

The above is no different from "texting". Cohorts have their own rules and language for messaging each other.  It's curious that they are willing to invest in learning "texting" language and rules yet often can't spell or punctuate.


----------



## rederob (5 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Well I must be old fashioned
> Most certainly I would include a hyphen here for example (and I would argue it is crazy not to) :-
> 
> *The ancient Roman bridge was a magnificent example of an efficient military sub- and superstructure construction. *




No, you are probably intellectually challenged.
When a Roman Bridge can be a submarine I will defer to your hyphenation.

Stop creating non-senses from clear senses.  Drop the extra hyphen and the above sense remains wholly unambiguous.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

english (English) needn't be perfect I agree. - especially if we use the benchmark that communication of an idea is sufficient. ( ala texting I guess - the fewer letters and punctuation marks the better - and cheaper).

changing tac a bit,  
my son came back from kindy or first grade (forget) with a painting and a sentence "the good pirat stabbed the bad pirat" - and as with most of his paintings, there were swords and gore all over the place lol. 

I calmly said " WOW that's great mate!" .. and then as gently as I could "err but you know pirat should be pirate yes?"

Straight away his enthusiasm was dashed - "I'm not gonna show you any more of my paintings dad" lol .   I was suitably chastened, and never complained again.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if he spells it pirat to this day lol.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

rederob said:


> No, you are probably intellectually challenged.




rob , there you go again .. namecalling. 
I'm not gonna share any of my hypotheticals with you again lol.

PS it's an example for goodness sake.



> Stop creating non-senses from clear senses.  Drop the extra hyphen and the above sense remains wholly unambiguous.




Rob - I'm guessing that an ABC newsreader, or for that matter a person who is trying to speed-read a long technical report on bridges or Romans  - or arguments on grammar for that matter - would agree that the hyphen helps make it crystal clear, and they don't run such a risk of being caught up with a double take on an ambuiguous meaning.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

PS Rob, you gentleman you ,  Lemme put it this way...
Suppose I go to the trouble of getting a ruling from an ABC reader....  or the English Dept of Uni of Sydney ... or some such ...
and suppose they ruled in my favour ...

a) would you accept that ruling , and 
b) would you apologise for introducing personal insults into a discussion about grammar?

btw, if they ruled in your favour I'd stand corrected.  Not sure I'd have anything to apologise over, but I's stand corrected I concede.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

Rob, 
ahh when in doubt ask "the boss".  My wife recently did a course on this stuff.  Textbook? "The Style Manual" Edn 6 put out by the Australian Govt Attorney-General's Dept.  As close as you'll get to the official Aussie Bible yes?

Here's what it says about hanging hyphens... 
*"full- and part-time positions" (specified as ok)*
but potentially ambiguous, 

- and the way to avoid this ambiguity is not - as you would suggest, to say 
*"full and part-time positions" (not ok *- well, not even mentioned, presumably not ok) 

but to say
*"full-time and part-time positions"  (specified as ok)*

PS this is directed at anyone else but Rob - maybe someone who can smile at an attempted joke, even if it's a failure. 

I wonder how they'd say ..

"the new brewery worker positions were half full- and half part-time." lol

PS at risk of being thrown into jail, I post the copyright page (as an acknowledgment ) ...  It's not like those photocopied books you buy in Taiwan, lol - that even copy the copyright page   - you'll notice that you can contact the Commonwealth Copyright Administration if you have "inquiries concerning reproduction"


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 October 2008)

The telephone text message era may well be spawning an  increase in "condensing" of what one has to communicate.Punctuated compensation for poor grammar is on the rise!

Why write - *"full- and part-time positions"* with a hyphen when without or better still *"full-time and part-time positions"* is more descriptive, accurate and smmoootthh.


----------



## rederob (5 October 2008)

2020

Learn to read for comprehension, and then enjoyment.
You are clearly challenged by the former.
I am not saying it is wrong to use the extra hyphen in your examples.
When they add nothing to the sense, why use them?
Furthermore, if one writes well there is little need for disambiguation, and punctuation can be kept to a minimum.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

rederob said:


> 2020
> 
> Learn to read for comprehension, and then enjoyment.
> You are clearly challenged by the former.
> ...



rederob,

ok ok - continue the lecturing parent tone if you wish / must...  (some people have trouble getting out of that gear ...) 

but in the end I have to conclude , concerning those questions on post #489 , that 


a) would you accept that ruling , ........NO;  and 
b) would you apologise for introducing personal insults into a discussion about grammar?  NO.

we move on...


----------



## rederob (5 October 2008)

2020
You are challenged in comprehending rather simple concepts.
You "conclusions" have no basis.
Your posts are a mish mash of styles, suggesting you have little capacity for consistency.
Apart from some excellent links, your contributions to this thread seem otherwise self-serving.
You could open your mind to other perspectives.
English is in a constant state of flux.
I enjoy being able to write in different styles without changing the sense I wish to convey.
I am not offended by poor grammar nor spelling.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 October 2008)

rederob said:


> 2020
> You are challenged in comprehending rather simple concepts.
> You "conclusions" have no basis.
> Your posts are .. etc.



well rederob 

you are challenged in comprehending simpler concepts still..

namely that the "Style Manual for authors, editors and printers" - as published by the Commonwealth Govt Attorney-General's Dept -  as taught to proof readers - disagrees with you.  

In fact your option "full and part-time positions" is apparently wrong. 

good luck with your spin-doctoring of that one...


----------



## rederob (5 October 2008)

To begin, the "Style Manual" is authored by the Department of Finance and Administration and is printed by John Wiley & Sons Australia.
I used the Manual for about 10 years when preparing material for publishing by the then Australian Government Publishing Service.
It's an excellent reference book.
Like any manual it provides for consistency if followed to the letter.

There is a case for hanging hyphens, but they are used too frequently by pedants who stick to an application rule rather than a sense rule.

An example:
"A survey found that creative tendencies were not evenly spread throughout right- and left-handed populations."

As the survey was of people, we need to differentiate the "right" from those who could be wrong, yet mostly used their right hands.

It is my preference not to hyphenate "right or left-handed" or "full and part-time" unless an ambiguity is probable.


----------



## noirua (6 October 2008)

rederob said:


> Truss was a sports journalist who wrote a book on punctuation that became a best seller.  She is not a grammarian nor any sort of expert on English language or writing.
> 
> The core of this thread is "lessons".
> These differ markedly across English speaking nations.
> ...




Unfortunately your sentence does not make much sense, because it has no punctuation.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2008)

rederob said:


> To begin, the "Style Manual" is authored by the Department of Finance and Administration ..



True,  I decided not to clarify that one further -  thinking it a trivial point -  didn't think Joe would thank me for filling up the post back there with more than 3 pages scanned from that book  -  I thought, rather than confuse, I would refer only to the Attorney General's Dept - which is mentioned in one of those scans - as being the Dept from whom you must apply for permission to reproduce - which lead into that line, intended to be a light hearted joke.

I thought it was a nice segue into said joke - nice change of direction from your insults of others being intellectually challenged.   

Yes, the "Client Agency" is the Dept of Finance and Administration. 
Either way, it's the Commonwealth Govt is it not?

And does that make any significant difference to the argument?



> I used the Manual for about 10 years when preparing material for publishing by the then Australian Government Publishing Service.



OK, your credentials are superior to mine.  Conceded.

Still, that book mentions my example, but doesn't mention yours. So I'm not sure which way the Dept would rule here, your interpretation or mine.



> I enjoy being able to write in different styles without changing the sense I wish to convey.
> I am not offended by poor grammar nor spelling.




Still maybe you could keep working on that tolerance you mention..

Let's agree that neither of us were "wrong" then.
I'll continue to write it ...

"full- and part-time positions"

and you keep up your verstaility with presumably the option to use any one of those three options

"full and part-time positions"
"full- and part-time positions"
"full-time and part-time positions"

Speaking of segue...
I'm gonna segue into another topic of conversation....
In checking the spelling of segue (not a word I often commit to print - only ever hear it on ABC radio let's face it)
I ran across this phrase - which I thought was pretty poetic...

"Daylight segued into dusk" Susan Dworski 

or if you prefer - the challenge for pop groups etc ...

"How do the world's most celebrated adolescents [sc. the Rolling Stones] segue into middle age?"
(lol try premature three-quarter age) 


> Segue
> To move smoothly and unhesitatingly from one state, condition, situation, or element to another.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 October 2008)

> I'll continue to write it ...
> "full- and part-time positions"




PS and wysiwyg will continue to write ...

"pre-Antidisestablishmentarianism  and post-Antidisestablishmentarianism"  

(whereas I would be 12 syllables further down the document wys lol) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism



> Antidisestablishmentarianism (listen to British sample (info), American sample (info)) is a political position that originated in nineteenth-century Britain, where antidisestablishmentarians were opposed to proposals to remove the Church of England's status as the state church of England forwarded principally by both Payne and Tuffin.
> 
> The movement succeeded in predominantly Anglican England, but failed overwhelmingly in Roman Catholic Ireland – where the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 – and in Wales whose four Church of England dioceses were disestablished in 1920, subsequently becoming the Church in Wales. Antidisestablishmentarian members of the Free Church of Scotland delayed merger with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland in a dispute about the position of the Church of Scotland.
> 
> The term has largely fallen into disuse; however, the issue itself is still current (see Act of Settlement 1701).. etc etc .




likewise :-
pre- and post-floccinaucinihilipilification

where floccinaucinihilipilification means "to value something at nothing" - much like the sub-prime meltdown really  



> Longer words typically have been coined by specific authors in relatively modern times, or are obscure technical names. For example, *floccinaucinihilipilification*, first used in prose by William Shenstone in 1741, is 29 letters long, but was thought to have been coined as a nonsense word by a single person or small group of students at Eton. *It is rumoured that this was intended to mean "to value something at nothing" or to describe a lack of value*.


----------



## rederob (8 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS and wysiwyg will continue to write ...
> 
> "pre-Antidisestablishmentarianism  and post-Antidisestablishmentarianism"
> 
> ...



For the sake of good English I would hope that PS and wysi do not capitalise "antidisestablishmentarianism".
Also, floccinaucinihilipilification is not a verb, so does not mean "to" anything.
Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## Julia (8 October 2008)

It's a sign of the times that I opened this thread (excessively long words and all) for some light relief!


----------



## johenmo (9 October 2008)

Great idea Julia.  But it's taken on a life of it's own.  Language changes and, as much as I hate "poor English and grammar" I have to recognise this, and not be an "grammarr nazi".

But- the- interaction- about- hyphens- is- interesting-!!!!


----------



## Julia (9 October 2008)

johenmo said:


> Great idea Julia.  But it's taken on a life of it's own.  Language changes and, as much as I hate "poor English and grammar" I have to recognise this, and not be an "grammarr nazi".
> 
> But- the- interaction- about- hyphens- is- interesting-!!!!



Hi Johenmo, we're at cross purposes here.
I didn't actually start the thread.

My previous post referring to this thread as "light relief" was that I was reading it as such in contrast to all the misery of the current financial mess.

I won't go on about apostrophes again.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 October 2008)

I would like to thank the good folk here for now i am much more consieoce of my spelling and have dropped my grammar and spelling mistakes from 1 every second word to a much more acceptable level.

thankyou
a nun


----------



## white_crane (9 October 2008)

I was wondering...

Do typos count as spelling or grammatical errors?  How does one differentiate between a typo and a spelling or grammatical error?


----------



## rederob (10 October 2008)

white_crane said:


> I was wondering...
> 
> Do typos count as spelling or grammatical errors?  How does one differentiate between a typo and a spelling or grammatical error?



Typos/spelling can impact grammar, but are not elements of grammar.
Oddly enough hyphens are the biggest offenders!


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2008)

what the world needs is more enlightened economists

oops typo 

what the world needs is more-enlightened economists


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 October 2008)

From the Style Manual ...  (seems you are allowed to use 3 dots and 3 dots only - sheesh)

Square brackets are primarily used in quoted material to signify editorial interpolations or insertions made by someone other than the author - to clarify, add further info, or to point to errors in the original text.

He writes in his memoirs, "Although I barracked for the Wallabies [Australia], I rarely bet on them, although sometimes I put my money on the All Blacks [New Zealand]". 

Whereas Angle Brackets  <  > have gained prominence in recent years as a distinctive device enclosing email and web addresses.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 October 2008)

white_crane said:


> I was wondering...
> 
> Do typos count as spelling or grammatical errors?  How does one differentiate between a typo and a spelling or grammatical error?




whitecrane - 
I reckon most people would say it's easy to differentiate - i.e. it's a typo if they make it, and it's an error if someone else makes it ... 

Like the accidental omission of the word "not".  
Also in conversation, where the addressee hears "not" that may or may not have been there, eg

"I told you (not) to do the mowing".

Bit like that yarn about the Freudian slip..
bloke tells his mate in the pub,  both three parts to the wind,   "I had one of those Freudian Slip thingos last week"

"yeah? what are they?"
"well - you make a little mistake in your words  - like, there was this really buxom lady at the Railway Ticket Office, and I meant to ask for a ticket to Pittsburg..., but what I actually said was "I'd like a picket to Tittsburg"  

So his m8 replies,  "yep, I know what you mean, I had one just last night - went home, the missus says "hi dear" , 
Now what I meant to say was "hi sweetheart" , but I had one of those slip things just like you ........ and what I said was "you made my life a misery you b1tch" ". 

(not intended to be a sexist joke - easily reversed if a lady wants to tell the same joke lol) 

Bit like what some people claim to be typos in withdrawn business letters if you get my drift.


----------



## noirua (11 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> whitecrane -
> I reckon most people would say it's easy to differentiate - i.e. it's a typo if they make it, and it's an error if someone else makes it ...
> 
> Like the accidental omission of the word "not".
> ...



Hi 2020, I'd like to read it round the other way, to difficult for me. That last paragraph could be risky. 
PS. Doris and Julia may be none too pleased


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 October 2008)

noirua said:


> Hi 2020, I'd like to read it round the other way, to difficult for me. That last paragraph could be risky.
> PS. Doris and Julia may be none too pleased




yep , so it was the boss and his secretary having a drink after work - and the secreatary says 
"I meant to say "hi dear" , but what came out was 
"you made my life a misery you idiot". 

Reminds me also 
The other excuse for withdrawing a business letter is "spellcheck"

Example :-
"Dear Sirs, 
Your letter of 16th instant refers.  Thank you for your order for five pairs of boots, but unfortuantely you failed to advise the size. 
*We are dealing in idiots here*. 
Yours in eternal humble servitude etc etc "

oops
Re previous draft of letter just sent ..
What I typed was "We are dealing in idiobs here."  auto corrected by my computer. 
What I intended was "*We are dealing in idioms here*."
Personally I blame Spellcheck - apologies


----------



## noirua (11 October 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yep , so it was the boss and his secretary having a drink after work - and the secreatary says
> "I meant to say "hi dear" , but what came out was
> "you made my life a misery you idiot".
> 
> ...



2020, I thought you would go for something stronger on that paragraph.

On spell-check: My Flock browser has a very good spell-checker but I'm having to update it as it can't spell very well.


----------



## Doris (11 October 2008)

A friend of mine, a solicitor, complained about a new secretary:

"I have to correct her grammar - she typed 'we will try *to*...' I had to change it to 'we will try *and*...' "

I said it was presumptuous to say 'and', and asked if it were a legally binding statement that they actually *had* to.

She was correct: 'We will *try* to...'

His sheepish tail went between his legs... lol ... he's a doll!


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 October 2008)

lol 
 or Dan Quayle and his correction of that kid on national TV "potato-e"


----------



## johenmo (15 October 2008)

And I always thought grammar was married to granpa!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 October 2008)

So what is the figure of speech when you say "I bought a new set of wheels"?

"with my new plastic"  etc ?

Found this word of the day on dictionary.com ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche


> Synecdoche is taken from Greek sinekdohi (συνεκδοχή), meaning "simultaneous understanding" (pronounced /si-nek-duh-kee/) ...  a figure of speech in which:
> 
> a term denoting a part of something is used to refer to the whole thing, or
> 
> ...






> Examples where a part of something is used to refer to the whole:
> "The ship was lost with all hands [sailors]."
> "His parents bought him a new set of wheels [car]."
> Similarly, "mouths to feed" for hungry people, ...





> Examples where the whole of something is used to refer to a part of it:
> "Use your head [brain] to figure it out."
> "Michigan [the government of Michigan] just passed a law addressing this problem."





> Examples where a species (specific kind) is used to refer to its genus (more general kind):
> "castle" for home, "meat" or "bread" for food





> Examples where the material from which an object is made is used to refer to the object itself:
> "Those are some nice threads [clothes]."
> Similarly, "willow" for cricket bat, "boards" for stage, "ivories" for piano keys, "plastic" for credit card, "lead" for a bullet and "rubber" for vehicle tyres.


----------



## Glen48 (21 October 2008)

What about wind as in air and wind wind a clock up or lead as Pb lead astray and lead take the lead.
Then you can have unsinkable 2, or Fighting for Peace, Military Intelligence  
No wonder we don't know nothing.


----------



## Real1ty (22 October 2008)

Glen48 said:


> No wonder we don't know nothing.




hehee


----------



## noirua (3 November 2008)

Are you a "chav"?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> LOOSE is like not tight
> 
> 
> LOSE is like not gain
> ...




I found my post from a while back and find it is still common to see lose spelled incorrectly.Sometimes on purpose I think.


----------



## noirua (8 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I found my post from a while back and find it is still common to see lose spelled incorrectly.Sometimes on purpose I think.



Loose could mean "free mobility of the bowels", or, inexact; indefinite; vague; not strict; unrestrained; lax; licentious; dispersedly or openly disposed; not serried; not in possession of the ball(soccer); or the player(rugby); unrestraint; freedom; abandonment; an outbreak of self indulgence; a course of rush; event; upshot, end, as in very loose.


----------



## prawn_86 (9 February 2009)

tech/a said:


> Prudes you'll not aren't featured in photo's like these.




Sorry tech, but this nearly made my brain implode...


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 February 2009)

*Pangloss*
-noun 
#an incurable optimist in a satire by Voltaire 

*Panglossian*
–adjective 
#characterized by or given to extreme optimism, esp. in the face of unrelieved hardship or adversity.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 April 2009)

*Anticipatory*

adjective 
Date: 1669 
: characterized by anticipation : anticipating <took anticipatory measures to prevent floods> 

: the group agreed that picking stock market turns was an anticipatory process. (my example)


----------



## Timmy (12 June 2009)

As a safety issue can people please refrain from pouring over charts, as in "I will pour over my charts to find a trade".

I don't know what it is that is being poured, but if it is over paper charts there could be a mess and if it is over charts on a screen there is an electrical hazard.

If anyone does need to study a chart carefully and attentively please pore over it instead.


----------



## Julia (12 June 2009)

Bless you, Timmy  Just hope people read your post.

But by far the most common error (which drives me nuts) is "there" for "their" and vice versa.

Let's just try this:   "I am going *there".*

                           "They all took off *their* coats".

Is that too hard to remember?

Another rather curious one was "Here, Here!" as an endorsement of what someone has said.
Does that really make sense?
It's "Hear, hear", or fairly obviously an admonition to the audience to 'listen up' to the wisdom being espoused.

We hear it constantly when the politicians are giving a speech.  Their colleagues nod sagely and every 7 seconds say "Hear, Hear!!!".


----------



## rub92me (12 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> As a safety issue can people please refrain from pouring over charts, as in "I will pour over my charts to find a trade".
> 
> I don't know what it is that is being poured, but if it is over paper charts there could be a mess and if it is over charts on a screen there is an electrical hazard.
> 
> If anyone does need to study a chart carefully and attentively please pore over it instead.



Selecting stocks by pouring over charts is likely to make you poorer indeed, but it is better than making poo rings on it I suppose...


----------



## Cartman (13 June 2009)

Julia said:


> But by far the most common error (which drives me nuts) is "there" for "their" and vice versa.
> 
> Let's just try this:   "I am going *there".*
> 
> ...




yes it is ---- so their !! --- oops, i mean there  --- told u it was hard   (u would be "you" of course)




Julia said:


> Another rather curious one was "Here, Here!" as an endorsement of what someone has said.
> Does that really make sense?




perhaps they just want the speaker to move a little closer ---- could be a romantic gesture :remybussi 

apologies Julia --- ive been eating crunchy nut corn flakes : (ive would be "I've" too ---- but im too bludy lazy to be perticular (perticular is particular if u (you) want to get perdantic (pedantic) about it   --- im leaving now !!


----------



## rub92me (18 June 2009)

Just spotted this gem in the jokes thread.
A man go's to the optometrist etc.
Go's? GO'S??
What will be next. I have a pimple on my no's?


----------



## Mr J (19 June 2009)

rub92me said:


> Just spotted this gem in the jokes thread.
> A man go's to the optometrist etc.
> Go's? GO'S??
> What will be next. I have a pimple on my no's?




To be fair, there is much precedence for using the apostrophe to abbreviate a word :. In your example, the apostrophe should have been postioned after the 's'.



Joe Blow said:


> I don't actually think *its* that hard.




I would think this is the second most common violation.



> The spelling and grammar of those on ASF who are under 30 is noticably worse than that of those who are over 30. I also put some of the blame on mobile phone texting which has largely destroyed the spelling of many of those in Generation Y.




I believe you are confusing writing skills with presentation, and that the presentation is poorer due to cultural differences.


----------



## Timmy (19 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> In your example, the apostrophe should have been postioned after the 's'.




So it should be:
A man *gos'* to the optometrist?

No.  No apostrophe required .... A man *goes *to the optometrist.

I'm off to find the joke.


----------



## Mr J (19 June 2009)

I'm not saying it's correct :twak:, just that *no's* is not consistent with the example he was addressing.


----------



## noirua (19 June 2009)

Sometimes a name of a place is spelled wrong and is in fact really correct.
If a building is named John Smith's House and John subsequently dies, then it is not his house anymore, but the name lives on.

The house that belonged to John Smith, called John Smith's House, now belongs to Sandra Brown.  Sandra Brown's house is John Smith's House, even though it is not John Smith's house.  John Smith used to own John Smith's House that is Sandra Brown's house, but it is not called Sandra Brown's House.


----------



## Mr J (19 June 2009)

So Sandra Brown lives in John Smith's House, formally owned by John Smith. Where does spelling and grammar come into it?


----------



## Julia (19 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> To be fair, there is much precedence for using the apostrophe to abbreviate a word :. In your example, the apostrophe should have been postioned after the 's'.
> 
> 
> 
> .






Timmy said:


> So it should be:
> A man *gos'* to the optometrist?
> 
> No.  No apostrophe required .... A man *goes *to the optometrist.



You beat me to it, Timmy.   There's a peculiar widespread use of inserting apostrophes where they're not appropriate.   The basic principle of their function is:

   1.   to indicate something omitted:  i.e. "there's"  is from "there is"
                  and the 'i' is omitted.

   2.   to indicate possession:   i.e. John's shoes:  the shoes 
                  belonging to John.

                  If it's plural i.e. many boys and possessive, it would be
                  "the boys' shoes".   



Mr J said:


> So Sandra Brown lives in John Smith's House, formally owned by John Smith. Where does spelling and grammar come into it?



Maybe Noirua was just playing with apostrophes?
Btw, *formerly*  (meaning previously)


----------



## Mr J (19 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Btw, *formerly*  (meaning previously)




Yes, from the word 'former', rather than 'formal'. I usually produce one typo per post if I don't check it first.



> There's a peculiar widespread use of inserting apostrophes where they're not appropriate.




I don't think it's that much of a problem. I haven't seen this at all. *Go's* was the first example I've seen.


----------



## Julia (19 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> I don't think it's that much of a problem. I haven't seen this at all. *Go's* was the first example I've seen.



Well, perhaps you're just not conscious of it, Mr J.

e.g. 







> A man go's to the optometrist etc.
> 
> To be fair, there is much precedence for using the apostrophe to abbreviate a word . In your example, the apostrophe should have been postioned after the 's'.



If you really think    " gos' " would be right instead of "goes", then perhaps it's not too surprising you don't think inappropriate placement of apostrophes is common.  Not having a go at you, Mr J.   You usually write good English.
It's just that the apostrophe is probably the most misused component of the language.

Just take a look around your local fruit market some time.
I bet there's a sign offering "Banana's for sale" 
In my local paper today I saw "lots of opportunity's".


----------



## CapnBirdseye (19 June 2009)

Just found this thread.  I have been very tempted to point out a few examples of poor spelling and grammar in the past, but have refrained.

I'm not sure if it's (go me!) the purpose of ASF really, but it do's drive me mad.

I rather like "do's".  I think I'll use it a little and see if it catches on.

Oh and if there is a few hiccups in any of my posts tonight, blame those Little Creatures.  Mmmmm beer.


----------



## noirua (20 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> So Sandra Brown lives in John Smith's House, formally owned by John Smith. Where does spelling and grammar come into it?



If you look more carefully you will see a difference in the word House and house.
The point in spelling is: That a building or place could be spelled wrongly, but if that is the way the person wanted it to be or they just didn't realize.  Then the name that was originally spelled incorrectly becomes correct when looked at, perhaps, 50 years later.

If I built a house and named it Mellbourne House after the city of Melbourne.  Then that is not correct, however, later the name remains the same and a person repeating the name of the house is now correct.

So it is possible for what appears to be written wrongly to in fact be correct.
This is often argued in the use of apostrophes that have been put in the wrong place when naming a Church or School.  Wrong at the time, but that is the name of the school now and becomes correct.


----------



## rederob (20 June 2009)

noirua said:


> So it is possible for what appears to be written wrongly to in fact be correct.
> This is often argued in the use of apostrophes that have been put in the wrong place when naming a Church or School.  Wrong at the time, but that is the name of the school now and becomes correct.



Once named, that's it.
Smith's House
Smiths' House
Smith House
It matters not.
And it's not about apostrophes per se when naming anything.  It's about choice.
So Smith can rename her house "Melbourne House" if she prefers.
And Mrs Brown can buy Melbourne House and call it "Cubby House".
As she prefers.


----------



## Quincy (20 June 2009)

noirua said:


> The point in spelling is: That a building or place could be spelled wrongly, but if that is the way the person wanted it to be or they just didn't realize.





*Web row over Port Stephens spelling*

BY BEN SMEE PORT STEPHENS REPORTER
5/06/2009 4:00:00 AM

THE man behind a website advertising accommodation at "Port Stevens" thinks thousands of holidaymakers who visit Port Stephens each year do not have a clue how to spell the name of the area.

Troy White said he hoped his misspelt www.portstevens.com.au website would amuse locals but the web designer has copped criticism and complaints since he relaunched the site this week.

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...r-port-stephens-spelling/1532407.aspx?src=rss


----------



## Mr J (20 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Well, perhaps you're just not conscious of it, Mr J.
> 
> e.g.
> If you really think    " gos' " would be right instead of "goes", then perhaps it's not too surprising you don't think inappropriate placement of apostrophes is common.  Not having a go at you, Mr J.   You usually write good English.
> ...




I never said it was correct, I was simply pointing out that the example someone made as a joke was not consistent with the original mistake. I see plenty of mistakes with apostrophes, but it's usually leaving them out rather than inserting them incorrectly. Examples: Theyre instead of they're, or mans instead of man's (possessive).


----------



## Julia (20 June 2009)

Mr J said:


> Examples: Theyre instead of they're, or mans instead of man's (possessive).



Or even more frequently:  "there" instead of they're".


----------



## noirua (21 June 2009)

rederob said:


> Once named, that's it.
> Smith's House
> Smiths' House
> Smith House
> ...



I'll stop at this point as we may move into the realms of "singular possessive,  plural possessive, no possessive, dangling expectations and incorrect pluralisation". Worse of all "unintentional sense from unmarked possessive".

It's many years since I fully understood the above. Maybe others can explain it all as the mists of time have blinded me.

Good luck noi


----------



## noirua (21 June 2009)

Quincy said:


> *Web row over Port Stephens spelling*
> 
> BY BEN SMEE PORT STEPHENS REPORTER
> 5/06/2009 4:00:00 AM
> ...




If no one has the slightest interest in you or what you are doing, then a good spelling error starts debate and all of a sudden you have $100,000s of advertising for free.

If you are a pommy chef arriving across the pond and want to arrive in pomp and circumstance.  Then insult Australia and long comes good old Kevin Rudd to tell you off and make you recognized throughout the land.

"All publicity is good publicity" - Phineas Taylor Barnum, American showman "The Greatest Show on Earth", who upset Queen Victoria and the publicity made him famous.


----------



## J.B.Nimble (21 June 2009)

Julia said:


> You beat me to it, Timmy.   There's a peculiar widespread use of inserting apostrophes where they're not appropriate.   The basic principle of their function is:
> 
> 1.   to indicate something omitted:  i.e. "there's"  is from "there is"
> and the 'i' is omitted.
> ...




Another pet hate arising out of the world of apostrophes and contractions - he could of... I should of... It is truly amazing to see how many times seemingly educated people blunder there way in to this.   

Moving on from apostrophes, what do we feel about the grievous abuse of punctuation in TOYS "R" US ? I never quite understood whether it was to draw attention to the backwards R or to the Txt speak. In either case, surely the whole phrase is worthy of quotation marks? If they had merely wanted to draw attention to the mistakes then maybe they could have called the business TOYS R US (sic). Childish whimsy is no excuse - I note they have recently dropped the quotation marks from their logo...


----------



## bunyip (21 June 2009)

I sympathise with Joe and everyone else who is appalled at the generally low skill level of the average person when it comes to writing the English language. 
I absolutely grind my teeth when I read some of the posts on here, and see the atrocious spelling, punctuation and grammar.
The fact is that some people just don't have, and never will have, skill with the written word. 
Joe makes a good point about the generally better standards of people who are over thirty, but really, if someone struggled with the English subject at school, well, they'll struggle with it now, at least when it comes to writing or typing it.
I think laziness also plays a part - it seems that some people consider it too much effort to run a spell checker over their posts.

A old school friend emailed me a couple of months ago to ask for help in organising a school reunion. His posts were so riddled with grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors that you'd think they were typed by an eight year old, rather than by a middle aged man who attended a private school that had one of the highest academic records in Queensland. 
Thinking back to our school days, I remember this particular bloke as someone whose English grades were always low. He did well in some other subjects, but English was his Achilles heel.

An amusing story was told by the Principal of the school that my children attended. During his speech day address, the Principal told of how he had recently received a letter from the education department, informing him that due to the declining standards of literacy and numeracy in Queensland schools, the education department would be returning to the basics by focusing on teaching children the three R's.
The Principal replied to the letter by telling them he thought it was an excellent idea to return to the basics, particularly in view of the fact that the first sentence of their letter contained three spelling mistakes, two grammar mistakes, and two punctuation mistakes. He also pointed out that his school had never departed from the basics.

Joe, well done on starting this thread, but I don't like your chances of significantly improving the standard of this forum in relation to skill with the written word.


----------



## Julia (21 June 2009)

Bunyip, I suspect Joe has largely given up on attempting to correct the spelling and grammar on ASF (my apologies if that's not true, Joe), because of the resentment expressed by people who feel it's unreasonable and unfair criticism, and possibly a slight on their intelligence, which of course it isn't.

It's no fault of people who now have difficulty with spelling and/or grammar that they were taught by incompetent educators.

A friend of mine teaches English in a high school.   His Head of Department made four spelling mistakes and three grammatical errors in a one page circular.


----------



## bunyip (21 June 2009)

Julia said:


> Bunyip, I suspect Joe has largely given up on attempting to correct the spelling and grammar on ASF (my apologies if that's not true, Joe), because of the resentment expressed by people who feel it's unreasonable and unfair criticism, and possibly a slight on their intelligence, which of course it isn't.
> 
> It's no fault of people who now have difficulty with spelling and/or grammar that they were taught by incompetent educators.
> 
> A friend of mine teaches English in a high school.   His Head of Department made four spelling mistakes and three grammatical errors in a one page circular.




True enough, Julia - students have an uphill battle when their teachers are incompetent.
But in the case of the friend who asked me for help with the school reunion, he and I were in the same English class - our teacher was excellent and most of his students did well, while a few struggled.
My friend and some of the others could just never come to grips with English as a subject. In some other subjects he had no problems and actually did quite well.

It's a mystery to me why Queensland schools ever departed from the tried and true system that had produced generations of people with a generally decent level of  competency in basic maths and English.
It seems like human nature dictates that we change things from time to time, even when they're working just fine.
When the Queensland Education Department decided to toss out the old teaching system and replace it with one that featured updated teaching methods, literacy and numeracy standards were an immediate casualty.
I suspect that the same thing happened in other Australian states.


----------



## noirua (21 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> I sympathise with Joe and everyone else who is appalled at the generally low skill level of the average person when it comes to writing the English language.
> I absolutely grind my teeth when I read some of the posts on here, and see the atrocious spelling, punctuation and grammar.
> The fact is that some people just don't have, and never will have, skill with the written word.
> Joe makes a good point about the generally better standards of people who are over thirty, but really, if someone struggled with the English subject at school, well, they'll struggle with it now, at least when it comes to writing or typing it.
> ...



Hi bunyip, An excellent post, thanks - noi
PS. Should it not be "An old school friend..." and "...Rs."  Also "organizing" and "sympathize".


----------



## Timmy (22 June 2009)

Please avoid taking billiard cues to shopping centres.  

Cueing up at the checkout may be misconstrued as an overly aggressive activity (waving a big stick around often is); when in a line at the checkout please limit your activity to patiently queuing up.


----------



## Timmy (22 June 2009)

With a pen and a piece of paper you don't right. 

You can, however, write.


----------



## Timmy (22 June 2009)

Being greedy does not necessarily make you glutenous.  (Unless you have to much dough I suppose?)

Gluttonous instead of glutenous.


----------



## bunyip (22 June 2009)

noirua said:


> Hi bunyip, An excellent post, thanks - noi
> PS. Should it not be "An old school friend..." and "...Rs."  Also "organizing" and "sympathize".




LOL...Thanks Noirua, for pointing out those errors. You see - mistakes can still be made even by someone like myself who was always an 'A' student in English!

'A' old school friend was simply a typo on my part. 
You're correct - it should have been 'An' old school friend, the reason being that the word 'old' starts with the letter 'o', which is one of the five vowels - a     e     i     o     u, and words beginning with a vowel should be preceded by the word 'an', rather than by 'a'.
Interestingly, the letter 'y' is also considered a vowel, although this was never mentioned in my English classes. 

I believe that the words 'sympathi*s*e' and 'organi*s*ing' are spelt with an 's' here in Australia, and with a 'z' in the US.
If you Google both spelling versions you'll find that the same meaning is given for both of them, so presumably both versions are acceptable in the English language.

The three Rs, as opposed to the three R's....I'm not entirely sure on that one - it's too long since I was in a school English class! But you're probably correct.

Wouldn't the English language be so much simpler if it wasn't for all those fiddly little rules!
The other thing that makes our language confusing, particularly to foreigners but also to some people who were born and bred in English-speaking countries, is the fact that we have more than one way of spelling some words, such as 'you're' and 'your'. 
To further add to the confusion we then have words that are spelt the same as each other but have completely different meanings. Example...'wind' (as in the north wind), and 'wind' (as in wind the clock).
A couple of foreigners who are multilingual have told me that, for the reasons stated above, English was the most difficult to learn of the four or five languages they speak.


----------



## noirua (22 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> LOL...Thanks Noirua, for pointing out those errors. You see - mistakes can still be made even by someone like myself who was always an 'A' student in English!
> 
> 'A' old school friend was simply a typo on my part.
> You're correct - it should have been 'An' old school friend, the reason being that the word 'old' starts with the letter 'o', which is one of the five vowels - a     e     i     o     u, and words beginning with a vowel should be preceded by the word 'an', rather than by 'a'.
> ...




I've been sending emails to several countries to find out about the word "organise" or "organize".

One source said, it is organise in Australia and New Zealand; organize in the USA; and both spellings in the UK. 
However, a lot seems to depend on how much you paid for the dictionary. Cheap UK dictionaries go for "organize" and expensive ones "organize or -ise".

If a person was brought up in Australia some many years ago, they may find the dictionary was a UK reprint.  If you understand £ s d, lbs, oz, 1 mile and 3 furlongs, and 6 7/8" you come in that category.

Canada uses a dictionary similar to the UK but are fully metricated, as Australia are. The USA is not metricated so they sometimes rule in certain sports. The UK is all over the shop.

The problem appears to be over the pronunciation of "z" which is zee in America and much of Canada but not Quebec.  If the company is American and in Canada it is spelled "organize".  If the person or company has UK leanings it's spelled "organise" or "organize".

Many people use the word spelt instead of spelled. This is a matter of opinion here as spelt can be used, but may not be as it also means, "an inferior species of wheat" and is a derogatory term in parts of America and Canada.


----------



## bunyip (22 June 2009)

noirua said:


> I've been sending emails to several countries to find out about the word "organise" or "organize".
> 
> One source said, it is organise in Australia and New Zealand; organize in the USA; and both spellings in the UK.
> However, a lot seems to depend on how much you paid for the dictionary. Cheap UK dictionaries go for "organize" and expensive ones "organize or -ise".
> ...




Interesting. 
The English language is changing slowly but surely.
A while back I read the actual words spoken by one of the wives of King Henry VIII, when she was on trial prior to losing her head.
Her English was in some ways quite different to the English we use today.
I feel that the US is bastardising the English language to some extent, by changing the spelling and pronunciation of some words to suit themselves.
Their reasoning is that they're modifying the spelling to better reflect the way the words sound.
Examples - 'Mom' instead of 'Mum', 'thru' instead of 'through', 'tire' instead of 'tyre'.
I guess there's some sense in that, considering that the spelling of some English words bears little resemblance to the way they're pronounced.

I reckon we'd be battling to understand the English language if we could come back several hundred years from now.


----------



## noirua (23 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> Interesting.
> The English language is changing slowly but surely.
> A while back I read the actual words spoken by one of the wives of King Henry VIII, when she was on trial prior to losing her head.
> Her English was in some ways quite different to the English we use today.
> ...




Quite a lot of English words are Roman, Normandy French, Dutch, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Greek, Latin or come from the Bible before and after translation into English. Sometimes a ruling King made up a word and it was used from then on. Or maybe the inventor - or is it inventer - of the first dictionary ruled OK and decided what to put in.

I've made up a new word "plausiated" - if you're American then "plauziated" is ok - and as it's mine this is what it means. To be generally upset with the World and often seriously depressed by events outside of your control. Depression to the point of becoming suicidal by the way World events are developing because they are outside your powers to do anything, even though there are no personal reasons whatsoever to bring this on.


----------



## Calliope (29 June 2009)

This letter in The Australian this morning. Spell-check even fools sub-editors.



> No one beats Woolworths, no one beats Coles. In our democracy, we get what we deserve: miles of over-priced isles and the occasional special pumpkin.
> Keith Russell
> Mayfield West, NSW


----------



## trainspotter (29 June 2009)

Calliope said:


> This letter in The Australian this morning. Spell-check even fools sub-editors.




Could be a typo? Keep slaying them in the aisles Calliope.


----------



## trainspotter (29 June 2009)

OR SHOULD THAT BE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR? Why am I yelling ? Ooooooops Caps Lock


----------



## Mr J (29 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> LOL...Thanks Noirua, for pointing out those errors. You see - mistakes can still be made even by someone like myself who was always an 'A' student in English!




Once we hit high school, English has more to do with idea and expression than spelling and grammar. Proper language skills help, but it's really the substance that counts.

I have to admit, my mind finds using a 'z' rather than a 's' (organize rather than organise) very unaesthetic.


----------



## Mr J (10 July 2009)

Mr J said:
			
		

> and *you're* typical casino punter is no more likely to profit at this game than any other.




I thought I would point out that just because someone spells something incorrectly, it does not necessarily mean that they do not how to spell that word correctly. I wonder how often this is true, and how many people are unfairly assaulted by spelling and grammar nazis :.


----------



## Buddy (10 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I thought I would point out that just because someone spells something incorrectly, it does not necessarily mean that they do not how to spell that word correctly. I wonder how often this is true, and how many people are unfairly assaulted by spelling and grammar nazis :.




I'm no nazi but I guess you expect us to infer use of the word "know".

No offence meant J.


----------



## Mr J (10 July 2009)

All it takes is for a finger to miss it's key, a skipped word, or the brain to default to a similar word.

now if me wuz typin lyke dis den ppl wud hav a legit 'scuse to corekt meh....


----------



## J.B.Nimble (10 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> All it takes is for a finger to miss it's key, a skipped word, or the brain to default to a similar word.




...or for spellchecker or auto correct to substitute a close approximation when the unwitting typist is distracted or not thinking in context.


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I thought I would point out that just because someone spells something incorrectly, it does not necessarily mean that they do not how to spell that word correctly. I wonder how often this is true, and how many people are unfairly assaulted by spelling and grammar nazis :.




That's true but:

1/ Let's try another term rather than Nazi, it is unnecessarily pejorative and there are more descriptively accurate terms that can still be pejorative if that is what you wish.

2/ Simple typos, or the occasional unintentional word error are rarely picked on, unless the thread has descended into farce. It is the sometimes uneducated but sometimes slovenly and habitual misuse of spelling/words/grammar which offends. 

There is a reason for this. It is difficult to fluidly read someone's idea and expression if one has to pause to interpret the incorrect spelling and grammar often. I find an incorrectly placed their/there for example, interrupts my thought as I read. 

3/ How does one learn unless by being corrected? I failed English, largely because I was more interested in being a d!ckhead at the time. I have learned volumes through verbal jousts with English language pedants on various forums. I actually appreciate being picked up on poor grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Hail the language pedant I say.

P.S. Thank f### for spell checkers. 

3/


----------



## nunthewiser (10 July 2009)

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! 

 welcome to my world


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

Here's the ASF site translated into Elmer Fudd  - 

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=fudd&url=http://www.aussiestockforums.com.au

errrr you have to click the button


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Here's the ASF site translated into Elmer Fudd  -
> 
> http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialectp.cgi?dialect=fudd&url=http://www.aussiestockforums.com.au
> 
> errrr you have to click the button




Haha! Brilliant!



			
				wayneW said:
			
		

> Dat's twue but:
> 
> 1/ Wet's twy anothew tewm wathew than Nazi, it is unnecessawiwy pejowative and thewe awe mowe descwiptivewy accuwate tewms that can stiww be pejowative if that is what you wish.
> 
> ...


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (10 July 2009)

LOL! Thats hilarious, love the "Wecent Dweads"....particularly the ones by Kwusty the Kwown


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

It's fun, site is here, great for writing business letters.......

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I thought I would point out that just because someone spells something incorrectly, it does not necessarily mean that they do not how to spell that word correctly.




Yes it does. But if they don't do it through ignorance, it must be because they are slovenly and lazy.


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes it does. But if they don't do it through ignorance, it must be because they are slovenly and lazy.




Not really, I'm continually sending emails and not seeing the typos till it's gone and I'm neither lazy or sloveny.
It's a lapse of concentration if anything.


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Not really, I'm continually sending emails and not seeing the typos till it's gone and I'm neither lazy or sloveny.
> It's a lapse of concentration if anything.




Same thing.


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Same thing.




Not at all, lapse of concentration is not seeing the mistakes, lazy or slovenly is not checking or caring at all.


----------



## camaybay (10 July 2009)

Did you raed nunhteiwser's psot?

Ceehrs

When you have a story to tell the message is the important aspect, text is the method.

hvae a good ngiht


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

camaybay said:


> Did you raed nunhteiwser's psot?
> 
> Ceehrs
> 
> ...




If the first and last letters are in place the order of those in between doesn't matter , BTW you are an avatar thief !


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2009)

camaybay said:


> Did you raed nunhteiwser's psot?
> 
> Ceehrs
> 
> ...




Try reading 1000 words of solid text with poor spelling and no punctuation then. It is then that I become a conscientious objector.


----------



## Julia (10 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> That's true but:
> 
> 1/ Let's try another term rather than Nazi, it is unnecessarily pejorative and there are more descriptively accurate terms that can still be pejorative if that is what you wish.
> 
> ...



I'm astonished to know you failed English in your clearly misspent youth, Wayne.  You've clearly made up for this now.

I agree with your comment above (well, I would, wouldn't I, given my pendantry about the language).







Calliope said:


> Yes it does. But if they don't do it through ignorance, it must be because they are slovenly and lazy.







MrBurns said:


> Not really, I'm continually sending emails and not seeing the typos till it's gone and I'm neither lazy or sloveny.
> It's a lapse of concentration if anything.



How long does it take to do a quick proof read of what you've written?
Joe even provides a 'preview post' facility to be read before posting.
If it has taken two minutes to write a post, it probably takes 20 seconds to quickly check for typos.





wayneL said:


> Try reading 1000 words of solid text with poor spelling and no punctuation then. It is then that I become a conscientious objector.



Yep.  Me too.

There is one person on this site who really fascinates me with his use of language.   That's Nunthewiser.  
Nun, you habitually write in a sort of hokey not quite slang.   You will best know why you do this and I might be quite out of line in thinking it's not really you at all.

But every now and again, you seem to forget to get 'into character' and produce a post which is really articulate and minus any of the hokey stuff.
Just curious as to why you don't do this all the time?

Then again, the site would lose some colour if you didn't mostly do that idiosyncratic style.


----------



## nunthewiser (10 July 2009)

Julia said:


> There is one person on this site who really fascinates me with his use of language.   That's Nunthewiser.
> Nun, you habitually write in a sort of hokey not quite slang.   You will best know why you do this and I might be quite out of line in thinking it's not really you at all.
> 
> But every now and again, you seem to forget to get 'into character' and produce a post which is really articulate and minus any of the hokey stuff.
> ...




I'm just a "hokey" kind of guy i guess 

i guess my lack of articulation at times is definitely through laziness and often from me getting overexcited and in a rush to get my thoughts on the screen, especially when i read something that irks me.

i DO however have a few problems with punctuation and spelling especially with words like to/too ,their /there etc .i am no Rhodes scholar and never professed to be one 

but yes laziness in taking the time to proof read my posts and spending the time correcting them would be the major culprit..

however , since being on ASF i have learnt to spell so many more big words 

i make no apologies for my typing skills but will try and be a little more conscious of my blatant abuse of the English language in the future

other than that 

thanks guys for your patience


----------



## nulla nulla (10 July 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Im just a "hokey" kind of guy i guess
> 
> i guess my lack of articulation at times is definately through laziness and often from me getting overexcited and in a rush to get my thoughts on the screen, especially when i read something that irks me.
> 
> ...




i've heard of pseudo intelectuals but a pseudo bogan takes the cake...punctuation. lol


----------



## MrBurns (10 July 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Im just a "hokey" kind of guy i guess
> 
> i guess my lack of articulation at times is definately through laziness and often from me getting overexcited and in a rush to get my thoughts on the screen, especially when i read something that irks me.
> 
> ...




No one kin rap baaaad English dese days partly cuz' of de Labo' dominated educashun system and partly cuz' of TV and slack standard's generally. Slap mah fro!


----------



## nulla nulla (10 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No one kin rap baaaad English dese days partly cuz' of de Labo' dominated educashun system and partly cuz' of TV and slack standard's generally. Slap mah fro!




Does that translate to "spank my monkey"?


----------



## nunthewiser (10 July 2009)

WOOOOOO HOOOOO i just got me a spell checker!!

look out ASF im gunna be watching all ya posts from now on


----------



## Tink (10 July 2009)

LOL @ Nun

Text messaging and chat/messenger hasnt helped the kids of today, with all these abbreviations they use.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No one kin rap baaaad English dese days partly cuz' of de Labo' dominated educashun system and partly cuz' of TV and slack standard's generally. Slap mah fro!




It's a cop-out to blame poor teaching for our low literacy standards. While there is no doubt that our teachers (and our teachers' teachers) set low standards, we have everything available at our fingertips to raise our personal fluency in our native language to any level to which we aspire.

It is a matter of attitude. Millions of people in third world and developing countries who are learning English as a second language under adverse conditions can attest to this.


----------



## Timmy (11 July 2009)

> Combine that knowledge with a positive expectancy trend following system and *you can't not fail over the longer term.*




Double negatives can be a real bitch .

(Not my bold or underlining BTW)


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> It's a cop-out to blame poor teaching for our low literacy standards. While there is no doubt that our teachers (and our teachers' teachers) set low standards, we have everything available at our fingertips to raise our personal fluency in our native language to any level to which we aspire.
> It is a matter of attitude. Millions of people in third world and developing countries who are learning English as a second language under adverse conditions can attest to this.




Don't blame the education system ?????????? 

you're joking right ? 

It's the students fault for not seeking to be educated outside the school ?

you're joking right ? 

Sounds like a Labor teachers cop out blaming everyone but themselves.

The standards are APPALLING they don't correct spelling because it might compromise the students individuality or some such crap, I really believe the teachers cant spell either half the time, thanks Labor.

We arent a 3rd world country and we shouldnt accept their standards in our classrooms.


----------



## kincella (11 July 2009)

Had my 12 year old grandaughter here the xmas before last......I was appalled, reading writing spelling arithmatic...all absolutley atrocious....
4 kids and a single mother....was she too busy, teachers too busy....
or was it my fault....I live Melb, they are in Sydney...I see them once a year ....the responsibility rests with mother and the teachers ...

so I made her spend 3 hours a day of her holidays, doing exercises, spelling etc and then testing her....a remarkable difference by the time she left....
but hey...otherwise she knows everything about kids games, fashion, latest movies...
ps I have no idea what they do in school 5 days a week...have fun ???
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2009)

Mr Burns, you obviously ignored what I said, and that is, *despite* the appalling English teaching standards in our schools, anyone who has the right attitude can raise their level  of literacy to whatever standard they wish. And I'm not joking.

And if they had parents like Kincella, who cared, it would help.


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2009)

Calliope said:


> Mr Burns, you obviously ignored what I said, and that is, *despite* the appalling English teaching standards in our schools, anyone who has the right attitude can raise their level  of literacy to whatever standard they wish. And I'm not joking.




Of course they can, but 10 year old kids don't know to do that and their parents think they're being taught by competent people.

Complain to the teachers and they just go off on "stress leave"


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2009)

George Orwell wrote this in 1945;

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html



> Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
> 
> I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
> Here it is in modern English:
> ...




How uncannily Ruddspeak.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2009)

btw, famous examples of bad spelling ...

there vs their vs they're
Hear vs here 

what about 
Semper ubi sub ubi, ...Always where underwhere.

or...
Romanes eunt domus ..Translation: A sentence scrawled on a wall by an Israelite in Monty Python's Life of Brian, intended to mean "Romans go home." A Roman soldier catches him at it, ridicules the bad grammar ("Some people called Romanes, they go, the house?!") and forces him, not to remove it, but to correct it to Romani ite domum.


----------



## Chris45 (11 July 2009)

I frequently read about people "loosing" money on their trades instead of "losing" it.

Or, is that somehow a reference to people being "fast and loose" with their money?


----------



## Mr J (11 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> There is a reason for this. It is difficult to fluidly read someone's idea and expression if one has to pause to interpret the incorrect spelling and grammar often. I find an incorrectly placed their/there for example, interrupts my thought as I read.




There's a difference between someone typing "were" instead of "we're", and someone typing as if they were in a speed chat. I too find awfully written posts to be painful to read, but few people around here do that. Often, requesting someone to type properly will solve the problem.



			
				Calliope said:
			
		

> Yes it does. But if they don't do it through ignorance, it must be because they are slovenly and lazy.




Yes, it must be. I'm glad you take the time to proof-read your own posts.

Nun, I find your typing fine. It's mainly internet talk that annoys me. Examples: Lol, roflmao, b4, m8, sum1, etc. Horrible stuff.



			
				Tink said:
			
		

> Text messaging and chat/messenger hasnt helped the kids of today, with all these abbreviations they use.




No it *hasn't*. Unfortunately, the problem spreads far further than 'kids'. Sms texts are a significant cause, and have affected all ages. Don't be fooled and assume this is the best people can manage, as it's as much (perhaps more) about culture than about literacy standards. It's 'cool' and easy to type _b4_ rather than _before_. If someone does use _b4_, it certainly does not mean they do not know how to correctly spell the word. As usual, people are making assumptions. Please don't.


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2009)

Some fairly obvious grammar mistakes from one of the reporters of the Tour de France on SBS - I dont think anyone really cares as long as they get the general drift.


----------



## bassmanpete (11 July 2009)

> I'm neither lazy or sloveny.




I'm neither lazy *nor* slovenly.



> fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!




Yes I can read this but it slows my reading speed. The same thing happens with the incorrect use of there/they're/their, to/too, no full stops or capitals to indicate end/start of sentences, etc. When pointing these things out in the past on various forums (fora?) I've been told, sometimes with foulest of language (which is always spelt correctly, surprisingly) that it doesn't matter as long as the meaning is clear. I say that it *does* matter, because what writers of poor English are implying is that their time is more important than their readers' time. That is, possibly hundreds of readers have to take time to interpret what would have been immediately obvious if the writer had shown more consideration and got it right in the first place.

Thank you and good night


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> I'm neither lazy *nor* slovenly.




Is *or* actually wrong there ?

I dont think so.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> btw, famous examples of bad spelling ...
> 
> there vs their vs they're
> Hear vs here



This has already been discussed, in detail.



MrBurns said:


> Some fairly obvious grammar mistakes from one of the reporters of the Tour de France on SBS - I dont think anyone really cares as long as they get the general drift.



Completely disagree.



bassmanpete said:


> I'm neither lazy *nor* slovenly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, bassmanpete, thank you for saying what I've wanted to say but lacked the fortitude.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2009)

Julia said:


> This has already been discussed, in detail.




Julia
 you're gonna have to think a bit less literally - a bit more laterally - with a bit of levity maybe. 

You indeed mentioned "here" and "there" in a post way back there.
so I introduced "where"  ...

get it ?



Julia said:


> Bless you, Timmy  Just hope people read your post.
> 
> But by far the most common error (which drives me nuts) is "there" for "their" and vice versa.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (11 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> you're gonna have to think a bit less literally - a bit more laterally - with a bit of levity maybe.



Your advice as to how I should think is noted.   I will treat it with the same lack of interest as I regard your re-appearance on this forum.

It has been a blessing not to have to wade through pages of U Tube videos, most of which were astonishingly irrelevant.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2009)

Incidentally there's a song called "Here there and everywhere" - but I won't post the youtube - I'm sure you know it, and it would only (obviously) upset you.


----------



## bassmanpete (11 July 2009)

> Is or actually wrong there ?
> 
> I dont think so.




Then think again. It's either/or, neither/nor. You also missed an apostrophe in your second sentence. I'll let you work out where it should have been; that can be your homework 

Now I really am off to bed, I have to be up at 0430.


----------



## MrBurns (11 July 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> Then think again. It's either/or, neither/nor. You also missed an apostrophe in your second sentence. I'll let you work out where it should have been; that can be your homework
> 
> Now I really am off to bed, I have to be up at 0430.




Ok you would be one of the very few who still follow that rule and as far as apostrophes go. I dont usually punctuate at all in this medium, no one knows or cares.

Sleep well


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2009)

Guess this is a figure of speech , and could be discussed here (as well as anywhere):-  Heard Adam Spencer discussing them the other day on 2BL Sydney... ( funny dude)

Mondegreens - attributed to a Sylvia Wright etc 

http://wordie.org/words/lady mondegreen



> Ye Highlands and ye Lowlands,
> Oh, where hae ye been?
> They hae slain the Earl of Murray,
> And they laid him on the green.
> ...




Hence ...


> Australians all eat ostriches
> Four minus one is three.
> With olden royals, we're well and loyal,
> Our home is dirt by sea.
> ...




http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/humor/mondegreens.asp

Will you still need me, will you still feed me , when I'm six feet four. 
The ants are my friends, they're blowing in the wind, 
Deck the halls with Buddy Holly etc
 etc etc

Obama's elf - don't wanna be
Obama's elf any more...


----------



## rederob (12 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Hence ...



There could be no more less capable person to hijack a thread for self indulgence.
kennas I fear your biggest poster byline is in for a 2020 thrashing.

MrBurns I have omitted one hyphen and four commas.  Plus trangressed on capitalisation rules because I respect the integrity of nics.
Please submit your homework to someone who cares.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2009)

rederob - question. 
have you ever seen it written "four days' duration"?
I saw it the other day - maybe it was correct in the 18th century - maybe?

PS in my opinion figures af speech (arguably but possibly not including Mondegreens) have as much interest value as do repeated pointing out of typo errors.  Just my 

To those wgo say it's not kosha to mention them here (Mondegreens, etc), then so be it - back to your... err ..  pedantry.



rederob said:


> There could be no more less capable person to hijack a thread for self indulgence.



In reply I'd probably add , "no more less" = more or less, "no".

"and if immoral doors we sometimes pass
just hope to pass on more-a-less a-doored" - whatever


----------



## Timmy (12 July 2009)

bassmanpete said:


> I've been told, sometimes with foulest of language (which is always spelt correctly, surprisingly)




This is so funny! Never thought of that.

Maybe in schools teachers could say "Now it is time for the effing spelling lesson."  Might work?


----------



## MrBurns (12 July 2009)

rederob said:


> MrBurns I have omitted one hyphen and four commas.  Plus trangressed on capitalisation rules because I respect the integrity of nics.
> Please submit your homework to someone who cares.




Goose


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 July 2009)

PS I leave "wgo" as an intentional typo - something for the pedants to latch onto.  - bit like a draftsman who intentionally leaves off the north arrow on his drawing, so that the boss can feel important when he corrects it. 

PS Those who'd prefer to make nonsensical and unneccesary arguments - about grammar for cryssake , sheesh - instead of posting a humourous "mispronounced lyric" = mondagreen .  cheers.  Takes all types I guess 

PPS. I still like that one ...
"Obama's elf - don't wanna be, Obama's elf any more..."
worth a look at the youtube if you haven't already.


----------



## Calliope (12 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I leave "wgo" as an intentional typo - something for the pedants to latch onto.  - bit like a draftsman who intentionally leaves off the north arrow on his drawing, so that the boss can feel important when he corrects it.
> 
> PS Those who'd prefer to make nonsensical and unneccesary arguments - about grammar for cryssake , sheesh - instead of posting a humourous "mispronounced lyric" = mondagreen .  cheers.  Takes all types I guess
> 
> ...




What a crock...


----------



## Julia (12 July 2009)

Gradually the worthwhile contributions to this thread will disappear in the face of its hijacking with utter rubbish, something which was mercifully absent for a very enjoyable period of time.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 October 2009)

Just brushing up on the possessive noun events and where to place the apostrophe.

First we must decide whether the noun is singular or plural.

For example the one I missed.

a) The damage done to a person`s brain. 

The noun "person" is singular in this instance. (one person -> two people)

Let`s (let us ) look at a plural example.

b) My friends` brains were dysfunctional due to taking drugs.

The noun "friend" is pluralised in this instance because there are more than one friend. (one friend -> two friends)

Simply changing sentence structure does avoid possessive noun situations. 

After all that I hope I`m right.


----------



## wayneL (26 October 2009)

I would have thought ' was more correct than `.

Compare it's to it`s.

Pedants rule, OK!


----------



## Julia (26 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just brushing up on the possessive noun events and where to place the apostrophe.
> 
> First we must decide whether the noun is singular or plural.
> 
> ...



You are,Wysiwyg.



wayneL said:


> I would have thought ' was more correct than `.



What does the above relate to, Wayne?



> Compare it's to it`s.



Presumably you're referring to the unnecessary space around the apostrophe?

I notice many more unnecessary and inappropriate apostrophes inserted than those omitted.  e.g. banana's for sale


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 October 2009)

Julia said:


> You are,Wysiwyg.




Not quite. "Is" would be the correct word to replace "are".



> The noun "friend" is pluralised in this instance because there *are* more than one friend.


----------



## Julia (26 October 2009)

You're right, of course.  I didn't even notice that.  Just looked at the examples (a) and (b) which is what I thought you were questioning.

Um, why were you asking if you were right if you already knew the answer??


----------



## nunthewiser (26 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Um, why were you asking if you were right if you already knew the answer??




He was awaiting my confirmation


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> He was awaiting my confirmation


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

Julia said:


> You're right, of course.  I didn't even notice that.  Just looked at the examples (a) and (b) which is what I thought you were questioning.
> 
> Um, why were you asking if you were right if you already knew the answer??




Julia, self doubt, W.


----------



## nomore4s (27 October 2009)

Julia said:


> What does the above relate to, Wayne?
> 
> Presumably you're referring to the unnecessary space around the apostrophe




I think Wayne is referring to the type of apostrophe being used - *'* compared to *`* - eg it's compared to it`s.

Wayne has obviously been living amongst the Poms for way too long :



> I notice many more unnecessary and inappropriate apostrophes inserted than those omitted.  e.g. banana's for sale




I must admit I do this regularly especially with peoples names, although I wouldn't do it in the example you provided above.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

Julia said:


> What does the above relate to, Wayne?




What I use as the apostrophe is two keys the right of the L key.

Wysiwyg's symbol is to the left of the 1 key and is... I don't know what it is actually. 

NB My keyboard is a UK one and slightly different to an Oz keyboard. The keys might be in different places.


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

SNAP!



nomore4s said:


> Wayne has obviously been living amongst the Poms for way too long :




That's about to change very soon.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> SNAP!
> 
> 
> 
> That's about to change very soon.




Apostrophes don't mean **** to me. I'm not submitting this blog post to an editor, politburo member or self-entitled wanker. This is a blog not a business or an Australian guvmint office for that matter. Don't worry Julia. Fey dont now how to spel 2  If your reserves in the deductive logic stakes are rapidly diminishing, IGNORE ME! 

Otherwise, harden up!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> What I use as the apostrophe is two keys the right of the L key.
> 
> Wysiwyg's symbol is to the left of the 1 key and is... I don't know what it is actually.
> 
> NB My keyboard is a UK one and slightly different to an Oz keyboard. The keys might be in different places.



Yes you caught me out using the single quotation mark instead of the apostrophe.  It is a habit of mine too.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes you caught me out using the single quotation mark instead of the apostrophe.




So how waz it fat u uzed a quotashon mark in one ov ur posts insted ov a kwestion marc?


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Apostrophes don't mean **** to me. I'm not submitting this blog post to an editor, politburo member or self-entitled wanker. This is a blog not a business or an Australian guvmint office for that matter. Don't worry Julia. Fey dont now how to spel 2  If your reserves in the deductive logic stakes are rapidly dimishing, IGNORE ME!
> 
> Otherwise, harden up!!



Ironically, a post with good punctuation and correct use of apostrophes.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 October 2009)

I am as tinkled as pink WayneL.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

Also it is correct to emphasize with an underlining rather than quotation marks. I'm getting there. (check the apostrophe )


----------



## wayneL (27 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I am as tinkled as pink WayneL.




Excellent!

It's a bit early for me, but I might get a bit tinkled later on.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Excellent!
> 
> It's a bit early for me, but I might get a bit tinkled later on.




Well, usually I allow the natural inebriating atmosphere of ASF to get me going, but sometimes a bit of extra sauce doesn't go astray. :alcohol:


----------



## Joules MM1 (27 October 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> Proofread, proofread, proofread!
> 
> I never click 'Submit Reply' until I have read through my post at least twice to ensure that it is free of spelling and grammatical errors.




Do you mean "Proof read, proof read, proof read" as in "I should proof read," or, as in  "I have already proofread the post? "

The distinction must be clear when written as though it is spoken when presented as correct English and not necessarily correct Australian. 

The distinction is; to be active or having been active  and posters gain  clarity by reading allowed their post before submitting.

to wit

....aussie moit


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Apostrophes don't mean **** to me. I'm not submitting this blog post to an editor, politburo member or self-entitled wanker. This is a blog not a business or an Australian guvmint office for that matter. Don't worry Julia. Fey dont now how to spel 2  If your reserves in the deductive logic stakes are rapidly diminishing, IGNORE ME!
> 
> Otherwise, harden up!!



Gumby, this is a thread about spelling, grammar and punctuation.
I'll therefore comment on the misuse of apostrophes if I feel so inclined.
It would be different if I were to comment on same in a thread which has nothing to do with the subject.
If you don't like it, and have no interest in the pursuit of reasonable use of the English language, then rather than my 'hardening up', maybe you could avoid the thread.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning. As administrator I am unfortunately exposed on a daily basis to the regrettable spelling and grammar of some of ASF's posters. This thread is my attempt to improve people's literacy levels and consequently improve the level of posting on ASF. Take pride not just in what you say, but how you say it.
> 
> Numbercruncher, pay attention to this lesson in particular.
> 
> ...




And Gumby, here's Joe's original post.  If you're going to have a go at me, then maybe take Joe on for even daring to suggest some improvements in the first place.


----------



## Joe Blow (27 October 2009)

Joules MM1 said:


> Do you mean "Proof read, proof read, proof read" as in "I should proof read," or, as in  "I have already proofread the post? "




I meant it in the present tense and thought that was made clear by the context. 

I also thought that proofread was one word. Are you suggesting that it's two?


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2009)

Joules MM1 said:


> The distinction is; to be active or having been active  and posters gain  clarity by *reading allowed* their post before submitting.




I'm afraid you have blotted your copybook.


----------



## trainspotter (27 October 2009)

Try reading a dictionary now and then. Antidisestablishmentarianism - longest word in the english dictionary (as far as I am aware) - noun - opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, esp. the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.

Proofread is one word .......... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Unfortunately we are bombarded with text messages (GR8 and  and other abbreviated nonsense) that has leeched it's way into the everyday vernacular inclusive of the written word. Standards are slipping in this particular field IMO. Hahah ah haa a hh aha !


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

Joules MM1 said:


> The distinction is; to be active or having been active  and posters gain  clarity by reading allowed their post before submitting.






Calliope said:


> I'm afraid you have blotted your copybook.




Oh dear. Who's a smarty pants now?


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 October 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Try reading a dictionary now and then. Antidisestablishmentarianism - longest word in the english dictionary (as far as I am aware) - noun - opposition to the withdrawal of state support or recognition from an established church, esp. the Anglican Church in 19th-century England.




I always thought the longest word in the english dictionary was a train station in Wales.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Julia, you do realise that quotation marks are predominantly used for quotations and if you wish to emphasize, it is correct with an underlining or _italics_.



Yes, thank you so much, Wysiwyg, I do realise that.  And that is why I used quotation marks.  I was quoting a phrase from Gumby Learner's post, i.e. he suggested I 'harden up'.
All clear now?

Btw, another appropriate use of quotation marks is to distance oneself from a phrase:  e.g.

"The disappointed body builder blamed the 'fat slobs' who judged the contest."

Here the writer is making it clear that the term 'fat slobs' was not his own choice of words, but rather that of the body builder.

So you could probably say that in putting quotes around "harden up", I was both quoting Gumby Learner and distancing myself from the expression itself.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Yes, thank you so much, Wysiwyg, I do realise that.  And that is why I used quotation marks.  I was quoting a phrase from Gumby Learner's post, i.e. he suggested I 'harden up'.
> All clear now?
> 
> Btw, another appropriate use of quotation marks is to distance oneself from a phrase:  e.g.
> ...



Yes sorry Julia. I have deleted the post.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> I must admit I do this regularly especially with peoples names, although I wouldn't do it in the example you provided above.



Nomore4s, can you give an example of what you mean?   It's often appropriate to use an apostrophe with people's names, e.g. Bob's coat.



Wysiwyg said:


> Yes sorry Julia. I have deleted the post.



OK.  No worries Wysiwyg.  The many nuances in language make it pretty hard to know sometimes.


----------



## nomore4s (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Nomore4s, can you give an example of what you mean?   It's often appropriate to use an apostrophe with people's names, e.g. Bob's coat.




Well there you go, I'm probably not doing the wrong thing then. To be truthful spelling and grammar isn't a strong point, didn't finish Year 11 so my education to a certain point is limited.

What is the rule about the use of an apostrophe like this - Bobs' coat? This might be where I confused myself


----------



## Joules MM1 (28 October 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> I meant it in the present tense and thought that was made clear by the context.
> 
> I also thought that proofread was one word. Are you suggesting that it's two?




to proof read is  a future tense thus two words and having proofread (or having proof-read ) is a past tense 



I intensely dislike "this is yours to" which means to be "this is yours too" and "this is better then" which means to be "this is better than" ....something the Americans are very fond of doing....oh well, I don't speak American....

thenks fer the reply, eh bro (which is south Auckland)


----------



## Joules MM1 (28 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> I'm afraid you have blotted your copybook.




Brilliant !! Well spotted! 

Aye, aloud and not allowed


----------



## Julia (28 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> What is the rule about the use of an apostrophe like this - Bobs' coat? This might be where I confused myself



The apostrophe comes after the 's' when the subject word is plural.
In your example above, it's not correct because Bob is just one person and presumably has one coat.  So the apostrophe is before the 's'.

If, though, you were to say "the men's coats", then that's correct because the word 'men' is the plural.

But, just to confuse you further, if we said :"the boys' coats", meaning the many coats of several boys, then it comes after the 's'.

Have I just made it worse for you?


----------



## nomore4s (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Have I just made it worse for you?




lol, yep:.

No I think I do understand, thanks.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> But, just to confuse you further, if we said :"the boys' coats", meaning the many coats of several boys, then it comes after the 's'.



That's why we now have 'boyz'. So now you can say "the boyz's coats". Problem solved! :


----------



## bounty (28 October 2009)

I'm so glad that this forum is helping people use correct English for online discussion.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> That's why we now have 'boyz'. So now you can say "the boyz's coats". Problem solved! :



Ah, wonderful, Chris.  What a relief.


----------



## noirua (29 October 2009)

When using a company's name that may start with a lower case letter. Is it proper to use the company's name as the first word in a sentence? Thus starting the sentence with a lower case letter, such as:  ebet (EBT) have said in their statement...


----------



## wayneL (29 October 2009)

bounty said:


> I'm so glad that this forum is helping people use correct English for online discussion.




Me too.

I've said this before, but I failed English at school... mainly because of being a total ********. 

Forums have made me pick up may act and do some after school learning.

The English language can be a beautiful thing, worthy of respect. The best way to respect it is to use it properly IMO. 

In person, we have all the non-verbal cues and body language in order to understand people's communication. Online, all we have is the pure written language. To get our message across accurately, the written language has to be of good standard to avoid misunderstandings.

My appreciation of certain authors has certainly increased as a side benefit.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Me too.
> 
> I've said this before, but I failed English at school... mainly because of being a total ********.
> 
> ...




Shakespeare was not the best speller, he wrote too bloody fast, but he would have empathised with you wayne.

From As You Like It



> "the whining schoolboy, with his satchel/ And shining morning face, creeping like a snail/ Unwillingly to school"





gg


----------



## Ruby (29 October 2009)

I have just come across this thread and am so pleased to discover there are other people who revere correct spelling and grammar.   You can't communicate properly without it.   I wish I had time to read the whole thread!!

My pet hates are the inappropriate use of the apostrophe (where on earth did it come from?) and the ridiculous idea that has taken hold of putting inverted commas around almost everything, using them incorrectly for emphasis.  There are others........... but I won't go on.   It would be a long post!

Thank you Joe for starting it, and to others who have expressed the same ideals.

Ruby


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Forums have made me pick up may act and do some after school learning.



Still some work to be done there Wayne  but I'm in a similar position. I also failed English (48%), mainly because of my lack of ability in 'creative writing'. The bloody essays that counted for about 30% of the total in matric English (if I remember correctly) were my Achilles' Heel despite an intense effort to try and improve. I came to the conclusion that if you're not a creative person, there's really not much you can do about it. In those days if you failed English, you failed to matriculate! Thankfully I was granted a 'compensatory pass' because of my higher marks in my other subjects.

However, a free little program I've found very handy is *WordWeb*. Its icon sits on my Quick Launch bar and gets frequent use in checking definitions. Highly recommended!


----------



## wayneL (29 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Still some work to be done there Wayne




You wouldn't believe half of of the typos I manage to catch on proofreading. LOL


----------



## BBand (10 November 2009)

*Re: Can you read this?*

From Cambridge University.--

Olny srmat poelpe can raed tihs.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthhit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter bt istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs psas it on!!

The above reminds me of my trading

(I still have difficulty in reading some text messages!!)

Peter


----------



## Ruby (10 November 2009)

Yes, thanks BBand.  I have seen this before, and although I could read it I had to concentrate on it.   The wonderful thing about language when it is written properly, with correct spelling, punctuation and grammar, is that it communicates nuances and meaning instead of being just a string of words whose meaning can be quiet confused or completely lost.  It flows and is read easily.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be taught in schools any more.

Now, having said all that, I hope there aren't any typos...........

Ruby


----------



## BBand (10 November 2009)

*Re: So you think you can read?*

Here's another to test your reading ability

Alzheimers Eye Test

Count every "F" in the following text:

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RESULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTI
FIC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.........

(see below)

HOW MANY?
wrong, there are 6 -- No joke
READ IT AGAIN!
really, go back and try to find the 6 F's before scolling down.


The reason is
The brain cannot process "OF"

incredible or what? Go back and look again!!
Anyone who counts all 6 "F's" on the first go is a genius

Three is normal, four is quite rare

The trading equivalent is trading in hindsight
When you miss an "obvious" trade and wonder how you could have missed it
-easy in hindsight

Peter


----------



## bassmanpete (10 November 2009)

> whose meaning can be *quiet* confused or completely lost. It flows and is read easily.
> 
> Unfortunately, this does not seem to be taught in schools any more.
> 
> ...




Sorry Ruby, you failed  The word you want is quite.


----------



## nomore4s (10 November 2009)

*Re: So you think you can read?*



BBand said:


> incredible or what? Go back and look again!!
> Anyone who counts all 6 "F's" on the first go is a genius
> 
> Three is normal, four is quite rare




lol, I got 5, missed the last OF for some reason


----------



## Ruby (10 November 2009)

Whoops!  You are absolutely right.   I just hate it when I make those mistakes!  Even though I read my post before submitting it, I did not notice.  Smack on the hand accepted with due humility.  Thank you for noticing.

Ruby


----------



## Julia (10 November 2009)

*Re: So you think you can read?*



nomore4s said:


> lol, I got 5, missed the last OF for some reason



Well, shame on me.  Even on the second reading I didn't pick up a single 'of'.
Can I blame my habit of reading fast, rather than imminent Alzheimers?


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2009)

*Re: So you think you can read?*



Julia said:


> Well, shame on me.  Even on the second reading I didn't pick up a single 'of'.
> Can I blame my habit of reading fast, rather than imminent Alzheimers?




Ov course the reason is ov no connection to Alzheimers Disease. When we read we hear the words.


----------



## nunthewiser (10 November 2009)

Geeeez after reading that paragraph 568 times i can still only find 5 .

First attempt i hit 4 .


----------



## nunthewiser (10 November 2009)

Uh oh i think i need medication ......... found the 6th F after posting my last post


----------



## Vizion (10 November 2009)

According to the latest studies, sight is 50% memory.  There is simply no way you can look at something & actually be 'seeing' everything. Your brain just can't process it all, so to help itself out it takes shortcuts. So really it's no wonder we all make mistakes and skip over errors.

Writing & reading is no different than looking at a picture and playing spot the difference. Sometimes what's right in front of your nose is unable to be recognised. 

Last night I kept looking at the word 'calendar' in a graphic I was making for an iPhone theme. I just could not get it through me head I had spelt it  correctly. I swear it still does not look quite right!


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2009)

Vizion said:


> According to the latest studies, sight is 50% memory.  There is simply no way you can look at something & actually be 'seeing' everything. Your brain just can't process it all, so to help itself out it takes shortcuts. So really it's no wonder we all make mistakes and skip over errors.



It so happens the brain records every sense from the early stages of existence to the end of it's function. From womb to death. It is truly a memory bank of all life experiences. The greatest gig of all is not being able to access these records at will.


----------



## Vizion (10 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It so happens the brain records every sense from the early stages of existence to the end of it's function. From womb to death. It is truly a memory bank of all life experiences. The greatest gig of all is not being able to access these records at will.




Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the studies?
The greatest gig? I don't follow the English here I'm afraid.

Give it till 2045 as that's when people like Richard Kurzweil think there will be a convergence between brain & computer, & the ability to remove the totality of your recordings & transplant them into a man made version.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2009)

Vizion said:


> Are you agreeing or disagreeing with the studies?



Neither.







> The greatest gig? I don't follow the English here I'm afraid.



The greatest mystery of all is why we are not able to access these records at will.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 November 2009)

*Re: So you think you can read?*



Wysiwyg said:


> Ov course the reason is ov no connection to Alzheimers Disease. When we read we hear the words.




Just to add. The read words can be in any recorded tone, gender, pitch etc. or even a mimic but mostly in our own specific voice (for want of a better word).


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

Ruby said:


> Whoops!  You are absolutely right.   I just hate it when I make those mistakes!  Even though I read my post before submitting it, I did not notice.  Smack on the hand accepted with due humility.  Thank you for noticing.
> 
> Ruby




Ruby, I feel for you, but remember it is only those of us who love the English language who are embarrassed when we make a mistake in grammar or spelling. Most don't care.


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Ruby, I feel for you, but remember it is only those of us who love the English language who are embarrassed when we make a mistake in grammar or spelling. Most don't care.



So true.  Although sometimes I wonder if maybe the 'don't care' attitude is really a defensiveness.


----------



## Camel Spotter (11 November 2009)

Sorry if this has already been said but 1 is not a prime number. Their ... sorry ... there are only 4 primes less than 10.


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

Camel Spotter said:


> Sorry if this has already been said but 1 is not a prime number. Their ... sorry ... there are only 4 primes less than 10.




 I think you may have strayed on to the wrong thread.


----------



## Camel Spotter (11 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I think you may have strayed on to the wrong thread.




My comment was directed at the first post on this thread which included 1 as a prime number. Trivial, I know, but I'm a Maths teacher and couldn't help myself.


----------



## Calliope (11 November 2009)

Camel Spotter said:


> My comment was directed at the first post on this thread which included 1 as a prime number. Trivial, I know, but I'm a Maths teacher and couldn't help myself.




I have to congratulate you on due diligence. Welcome aboard.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Camel Spotter said:


> My comment was directed at the first post on this thread which included 1 as a prime number. Trivial, I know, but I'm a Maths teacher and couldn't help myself.



:topic
LOL,
hey camel spotter , then you might appreciate this 42 minute discourse on prime numbers.   Sounds like you and Adam Spencer would be locked in discussion on this stuff .
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2730924.htm

Rather than be accused of going too far off thread, I'll post somethin' on the Richard Dawkins thread.  cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have to congratulate you on due diligence. Welcome aboard.



Yes it might be best to avoid having a Math's debate.


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 November 2009)

Camel Spotter said:


> My comment was directed at the first post on this thread which included 1 as a prime number. Trivial, I know, but I'm a Maths teacher and couldn't help myself.




camel, 
btw, another interpretation is that Joe (in post #1) was simply quoting a mathematician from the 18th century. (?) - call it an anachronism I guess. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture



> On 7 June 1742, the Prussian mathematician Christian Goldbach wrote a letter to Leonhard Euler ....
> 
> Every integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of three primes.
> *He considered 1 to be a prime number, a convention subsequently abandoned.[*4]


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Yes it might be best to avoid having a Math's debate.



I just need to correct my puctuation (lol ).

It should be maths debate. G'evening  2020. Long time nosey.


----------



## WRONG'UN (21 December 2009)

*Grammar*

I am old enough to have been taught grammar at school, and some of it I can still remember! Judging by what is common (mis)use these days, others have been less fortunate.
For example:
your and you're
there, their and they're
to and too
its and it's

Although it's easy enough to work out the meaning of what a person has written, it is often necessary to backtrack before the meaning is clear - this is tiresome.

I realise that languages evolve over time, but the widespread misuse of basic words, leading to confusion and ambiguity, is another matter.

And while I'm having a gripe, what's this "k" that Kiwis (Aussies too?) are sticking on the end of words like "anything" and "nothing"? At the rate some people are goingk, they will be singkingk songks before too longk!

Have a good Xmas everyone!

Cheers, Wrong'un


----------



## nunthewiser (21 December 2009)

*Re: Grammar*

Removed last post as it may have been inapropriate for a serious thread


----------



## Timmy (28 December 2009)

Is spelling correctness going too far?

to/two/too

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/to.html

http://www.quia.com/pop/1000.html


----------



## Julia (28 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Is spelling correctness going too far?
> 
> to/two/too
> 
> ...



I'd say the answer to this depends on whether you can spell or not.
Those who have difficulty would probably say it doesn't matter.
I'm not going to say anything, just swallow hard.

Timmy, maybe correct the example of this in a preceding thread heading?


----------



## Timmy (28 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Timmy, maybe correct the example of this in a preceding thread heading?




I was waiting on one of the politically incorrect to point it out over there.  No luck


----------



## wayneL (29 December 2009)

Why do so many people misspell ridiculous as "rediculous"?


----------



## Julia (18 February 2010)

The word "programme" seems now to consistently be spelled "program".
In fact even as I type this, I'm getting the red underlining indicating that "programme" is misspelled.

Yet another Americanism we seem to have adopted.

Ditto the pronunciation of "schedule" as "skedule" by journalists and news readers.

Grrr.


----------



## noirua (19 February 2010)

Julia said:


> The word "programme" seems now to consistently be spelled "program".
> In fact even as I type this, I'm getting the red underlining indicating that "programme" is misspelled.
> 
> Yet another Americanism we seem to have adopted.
> ...



Hi Julia, Yes, most dictionaries accept 'program' as an alternative spelling of 'programme' - unless they are American of course. 

On 'schedule', my dictionary accepts an alternative spelling of 'scedule'. Can't find 'skedule' however. I believe the spelling of 'schedule' came through Shakespeare.
Old spelling was 'shejyeol' and accepted by Britain and Canada, until Shakespeare - well, so some say.


----------



## Calliope (19 February 2010)

Julia said:


> The word "programme" seems now to consistently be spelled "program".
> In fact even as I type this, I'm getting the red underlining indicating that "programme" is misspelled.
> 
> Yet another Americanism we seem to have adopted.
> Grrr.






> *program/programme* The spelling _program_ is to be preferred, even if prejudice is unlikely to see it adopted in Australia on the ground that it is "American". _Program_ was the regular English spelling until last century, when the word fell victim to the embellishers, and in any case it is related to words such as _telegram_ and _diagram._ _Program_ has for many years been the official spelling of this word by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.




(Right Words - A Guide to English Usage in Australia, by Stephen Murray-Smith. 1989)


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 February 2010)

Julia said:


> Yet another Americanism we seem to have adopted.
> Grrr.



With predominantly American television and cinema consumed by millions this is some form of word parroting. What about the Australians that have lived in America for any length of time that start talking like an American? That is complete submersion. Not sure if it is a conscious or unconscious phenomena. To blend in.


----------



## Mr J (19 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Why do so many people misspell ridiculous as "rediculous"?




Because many people pronounce it that way :.


----------



## wayneL (19 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> Because many people pronounce it that way :.




But we don't spell Australia - 'Straya do we?

Over here you ask for a dozen "iggs" but it's still spelt "eggs".


----------



## Mr J (19 February 2010)

You'd be an idiot to mispell 'eggs' if you're a native speaker, or 'Australian' as an Australian. We see these words all the time. 'Ridiculous' isn't an uncommon word, but I don't think most people come across it regularly when reading or writing. There's also the bad influence - seeing someone write 'rediculous' and then assuming they're correct.

I don't think a spelling error suggests a poor education or lack of effort, which is why I wouldn't jump on someone for a spelling mistake. Not everyone uses every word often enough to log the correct spelling. There are limits though, if sumwun startd speling leik thise i wud haf two poke mie eis owt - I'd find that offensive.


----------



## trainspotter (19 February 2010)

My favourite gripe is the word "specific" (SPEE - SIF - ICK) and not to be confused with the other word "pacific" (PA - SIF - ICK) .... the second one is an ocean. The amount of times these two words are transposed irks the heck out of me it does ! Newsreaders especially F*CK this up regularly. I find myself shouting at the TV correcting them on the announciation. Rant over ... back to normal transmission now.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 February 2010)

In many countries and not only Australia this happens. Not typographical error but not knowing how to spell the word lose.

The word lose appears on financial forums often and it is a word a lot (alot is two words ) of people spell wrong. They think lose has two o's and spell it loose.


----------



## noirua (20 February 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> In many countries and not only Australia this happens. Not typographical error but not knowing how to spell the word lose.
> 
> The word lose appears on financial forums often and it is a word a lot (alot is two words ) of people spell wrong. They think lose has two o's and spell it loose.



There is also the verb 'allot', to distribute or divide as a lot. On lose and loose; there is 'loos or los' which refer to praise and reputation. [also the battle of Loos in 1915]


----------



## wayneL (20 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> You'd be an idiot to mispell 'eggs' if you're a native speaker, or 'Australian' as an Australian. We see these words all the time. 'Ridiculous' isn't an uncommon word, but I don't think most people come across it regularly when reading or writing. There's also the bad influence - seeing someone write 'rediculous' and then assuming they're correct.




Ridiculous!


----------



## noirua (20 February 2010)

wayneL said:


> Ridiculous!




There is a word 'ReDickUlous', which refers to the remixes of songs off Slick Idiot's first album, Dicknity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReDickUlous


----------



## awg (25 February 2010)

OK, heres one for you spelling fanatics, help me out please.

What is the easiest way to have your ASF posts auto spell-checked?

I note a regular poster with very fine spelling alluded to the fact that their posts are spell checked.

Would they type their replies via a third party program then cut and paste, or use some spell check software?..another way?

I just type things up quickly and spelling be buggered, unless if I really want to know myself, then I individually spell check the word.

I know for a fact my spelling is well above average, but a spell checker will make me seem so much smarter.

ps, no spell check used on this post


----------



## Timmy (25 February 2010)

I make sure all my posts are rigorously smell checked before posting.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 February 2010)

Use something like the Google tool bar. it has a button that you hit and it will check the spelling of any words in a form. Pretty simple.


----------



## Timmy (25 February 2010)

Have a look at this picture (below) ... does this help?


----------



## cutz (25 February 2010)

awg said:


> What is the easiest way to have your ASF posts auto spell-checked?




I tend to use safari for pc as a web browser, has this built in checker thingy.

Doesn't help me with my grammar thou.


----------



## Mr J (25 February 2010)

Trembling Hand said:


> Use something like the Google tool bar. it has a button that you hit and it will check the spelling of any words in a form. Pretty simple.




I don't like toolbars (waste of space). Does it support English, or just American?


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> I don't like toolbars (waste of space). Does it support English, or just American?




You need a bigger screen then,


----------



## nunthewiser (25 February 2010)

Uh? when one is in the reply box there is a spell checker douvalaki on the top right hand side already .


----------



## Mr J (25 February 2010)

My screen is 1920x1080. I just don't like clutter.

I guess you answered my question on the language - if there's only one 'English' then it's American.


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 February 2010)

Mr J said:


> My screen is 1920x1080. I just don't like clutter.
> 
> I guess you answered my question on the language - if there's only one 'English' then it's American.




Nah its mixed I think. For example it will accept things like specialised as correct but also specialized as well.


----------



## awg (2 March 2010)

Timmy said:


> Have a look at this picture (below) ... does this help?




thanks for the reply, but at the risk of exposing my klutz, how is the spell check facility applied under yr example? 



Trembling Hand said:


> Use something like the Google tool bar. it has a button that you hit and it will check the spelling of any words in a form. Pretty simple.




Thx TH, I have yahoo toolbar atm, no spellcheck, might change

Had a boss once, spelling and computers were not his strong point.
He used to email us his missives without spellcheck, the poverty of his spelling was the cause of much mirth.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2010)

Time to bump this thread before I go and have a pedant attack in some of the other threads.

Where did this using "then" rather than "than" come from. e.g. I like this better then that.

I also see "would of", "could of" etc  instead of the correct "would have" or "would've" a lot more these days. What's going on there?


Then of course there is always our old favourites...

your & you're

their, there & they're etc etc

...making their regular appearances. 

We all goof up from time to time and I'm far from perfect in this regard myself, but sometimes spelling, grammar and punctuation are so poor that it's very hardy to read fluidly.

If you have something to say, surely it's worth a bit of effort to make yourself understood?


----------



## Whiskers (10 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Time to bump this thread before I go and have a pedant attack in some of the other threads.
> 
> Where did this using "then" rather than "than" come from. e.g. I like this better then that.
> 
> ...




I agree, although my Ã©nglish isn't perfect either, but some people really make a hash of their written communication by not even using the basic full stop at the end of a sentence and start the next with a capital letter. Then, it's all often strung together without paragraphs and becomes a nightmare trying to accurately decipher what is meant as opposed to what Ã¡ppears'to be written. 

Then when some intertwine text language with normal english... 

It's bad enough on a forum, but on sites like ebay where it forms part of the sale contract it really makes it hard.


----------



## explod (10 October 2010)

Grammer has always followed the speach of the common people.

"R u rite m8" is the future.


----------



## wayneL (10 October 2010)

explod said:


> Gramm*a*r has always followed the spe*e*ch of the common people.
> 
> "R u rite m8" is the future.




Just touched up your post a bit there Plod.


----------



## Julia (10 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Time to bump this thread before I go and have a pedant attack in some of the other threads.
> 
> Where did this using "then" rather than "than" come from. e.g. I like this better then that.
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more, Wayne.
'could of' instead of 'could have' especially drives me nuts, and it's unbelievably common.

Many of the current and recent teachers weren't themselves taught grammar and spelling, so it's not surprising they're turning out similarly woeful kids.



explod said:


> Grammer has always followed the speach of the common people.
> 
> "R u rite m8" is the future.



Isn't there some sort of spellcheck feature you can use which automatically highlights incorrect spelling?

It's 'grammar', explod, not 'grammer'.   And 'speech', not 'speach'.

And no, grammar has not always 'followed the speech of the common people'.
Where did you get that idea?   Correct grammar is the same now as it was generations ago.

I have the impression that fewer people read much good literature these days so, instead of absorbing well written English, their input is more from text messages etc.  Such a shame.


----------



## Miner (10 October 2010)

My 
I have observed the errors in English start right at the school.
Most of our children go to public school where 20% of classes are taken by relief teachers (no offence) but they serve more as child carers than having any set goal to teach while coming for one day.

Specialist language teachers in the School are often missing. One teacher teaches English will teach Mathematics next year  Look at the half wages paid young children in the super markets, fast food shop . They even can not multiply 2x2 . All like robots. But some one need to study well to design more advanced robots. 
Now most of the business are either delivered by non English countries like China or India and business are gained by them too. So again English in neglected to be a subject of essence.

English unfortunately in an English speaking country is often neglected. Please cross your heart and tell me how many kids now a days study Shakespeare or Dickens. Forget them how many heard of them in school.

With X Generation (again it is for the time line and no offence to any age) heavily relying on computer, video games, there is no incentive  to learn English.  Every thing Mr Bill Gates and his mates are taking care off. But who are the mates behind Microsoft packages - believe me most of the guys behind computer software and hardware design,  do not speak English. 40% of the Microsoft personnel are Indians and hardware are made in China, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia - no one needs to learn good English for their trades.

How many secretaries now a days use Oxford English dictionary ? 

Current novels, newspaper stories are now a days mostly written in poor English. One does not need to be a Dickens/

People get away with excuses by having poor Grammar in the name of typo.
 IMO it is a disease embracing most of us. 

We particularly in Australia have embraced a culture in the name of multi culturism and hence Plain English culture in government. 

I think there is nothing called Plain English, Australian English, US English, UK English - it should be as governed by Oxford Dictionary (or Queen's English). End of the Story and no short cut. 

_BTW English is not my first langauge. However I am passionate to read, write and speak good English as I do like it for my first language._


----------



## explod (10 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Just touched up your post a bit there Plod.




Thanks Champ, we have to set a good example.

And of course "ignorance is no excuse"


----------



## Julia (10 October 2010)

Miner said:


> _BTW English is not my first langauge. However I am passionate to read, write and speak good English as I do like it for my first language._



Miner, with English as your second language, you set a terrific example.

Apart from some differences in syntax, you frequently write way better English than many who claim it as their first language.

And your willingness to absorb e.g. Dickens, is something many Australians could emulate.


----------



## bellenuit (10 October 2010)

wayneL said:


> Time to bump this thread before I go and have a pedant attack in some of the other threads.
> 
> Where did this using "then" rather than "than" come from. e.g. I like this better then that.
> 
> I also see "would of", "could of" etc  instead of the correct "would have" or "would've" a lot more these days. What's going on there?




Although lack of rigour in English teaching is obviously a cause of some of the problems, I think the advent of the internet is the main culprit. Prior to the internet, most written English available for general consumption was subject to some professional editing prior to being produced. I would suspect that greater than 90% of written text that a typical person would have read would be contained in newspapers, books and magazines, all written by professionals and subject to editing. So even though a person might have thought "would of" to be correct as it sounds like that when spoken, they would not find that in print and would soon realise the correct way to write it once they come across it in print.

The internet, however, has expanded enormously the sources of written text and much of it is produced by people lacking good English skills who tend to write based on how it sounds when spoken or often as it appears to sound when spoken. For many the internet is their main source of written communication and errors in writing can reinforce similar misunderstandings that the reader may have.

One of my favourites was a contributor to a US Stock message board who in several posts wrote "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes". I noticed one or two other posters, unaware the expression was incorrect, use it themselves in posts they subsequently made.


----------



## moXJO (11 October 2010)

I'm lucky if I write a paragraph a week. My grip has fused to hold a drill after years of construction activity, so any handwritting above signing my name starts to hurt (maybe I can shove a pen in the end of the drill patent pending). So personally, I don't get much practice. I think it's a skill that is taken for granted, and is also more likely to suffer due to job type.


----------



## Miner (12 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Miner, with English as your second language, you set a terrific example.
> 
> Apart from some differences in syntax, you frequently write way better English than many who claim it as their first language.
> 
> And your willingness to absorb e.g. Dickens, is something many Australians could emulate.




OMG

I felt humbled and thanks Julia for your kind words.
I will focus on syntax - only problem is that many a times even I try, do not know what should be the right syntax (seriously). Any way thanks again.


----------



## Ruby (13 October 2010)

Bad spelling, incorrect grammar, and incorrect use of language drive me crazy.  The English language is amazing in its variety and allows such fine and subtle degrees of meaning and expression, so using it correctly not only enhances communication, but it is a pleasure to read and listen to.

When someone says "could of" instead of "could have"  they often don't even *know *it is wrong, and it is the same with many of the other travesties of language we hear every day.

Another of my pet hates is the use of the apostrophe with a plural, and it is not even consistent!  "Here are the photo's of the boys in the football team."  It makes me want to scream!!!   AAAARRRRGHH!!!!!

Disclaimer:-  I don't claim that my English expression is perfect.  Mistakes slip through.


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2011)

Can people please put a subject into their sentences FFS!


----------



## pixel (22 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> Can people please put a subject into their sentences FFS!



 As in "Just came across this thread and thought it's the bee's knees!" ?
Wel, while I agree in principle, I do accept some laxity in a chatroom; meaning, where the subject ("I") is so obvious, I can let it slip.

But generally, I agree with the tenor of the comments earlier contributors made. I find it deplorable that so little time is spent in schools on elocution, grammar, synax, and semantics - let alone spelling and apostrphes.

IMHO, the bad seed was sown a good generation ago, when more importance was placed on children's "feeling good about themselves" and correcting mistakes they made was seen to "dent their litle egos". What utter nonsense! Teaching should be done by setting good examples, sure; but if the example doesn't get through, the teacher has to point at the mistake and clarify what, why, and how. Good teachers can achieve that without denting pupils' little egos. 
Social Engineers also did away with grading performance. If a student rates an F, mark their paper with an F; if the parents are even the slightest bit interested in their kid's wellbeing, they will know what an F means - and will seek specific help to target any shortcomings. Which can be done without damaging the child's psyche.
Too many young adults start their working life today utterly ignorant of basic self-assessment. They believe they know everything, because nobody ever told them that there's much more to learn; that there are far better ways to express themselves; that manners matter when dealing with customers or - Heaven forbid! - Supervisors, Managers, "Elders".

And then they cry FOUL! when a company hires immigrants in preference to a "true-blue Aussie" because those "Aliens" have studied the language as a serious subject. We accepted grades as welcome feedback, which areas could be improved. And our English teachers started each new topic with an explanation of basic linguistic rules, underlying grammar, spelling, origin of words - right down to choice of literature worth reading and using as examples. Those things stick.


----------



## pixel (22 July 2011)

PS: After submitting my previous reply, I was called away from my office for longer than the 20 minutes permitted to amend those nasty typos. I trust you believe me that I know "well" has two ells and syntax merits a t.


----------



## cynic (22 July 2011)

Joe Blow said:


> ASF isn't just a place to discuss the stockmarket and world events, its also a place of learning.





> *There* are five prime numbers less than ten.
> (with to be)
> 
> *They're* 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. (contraction of they are)




Thanks for the spelling and mathematics lessons. 

P.S. I was of the understanding that the number "1" is not considered to be prime as it's inclusion in the set of prime numbers would invalidate many mathematical formulae/theories and the universe, as we know it, would come to an abrupt and untimely end!


----------



## Julia (22 July 2011)

pixel said:


> As in "Just came across this thread and thought it's the bee's knees!" ?



I so agree.  Another example that drives me nuts is not properly including the subject in a thread heading.  e.g. "What do you think of this?" then a link which has to be clicked on while remaining ignorant of the subject.  How hard is it to include the subject in the heading so people don't waste their time with a link in which they have no interest.



> But generally, I agree with the tenor of the comments earlier contributors made. I find it deplorable that so little time is spent in schools on elocution, grammar, synax, and semantics - let alone spelling and apostrophes.



There seems to be some attempt these days to revert to teaching grammar at least.  The problem is, however, that the teachers themselves were not taught this so haven't a clue.




> IMHO, the bad seed was sown a good generation ago, when more importance was placed on children's "feeling good about themselves" and correcting mistakes they made was seen to "dent their litle egos".



Ah, the 'precious little snowflake' syndrome.  At birthday parties where the children play games there is no longer a winner.  Every kid, precious little sweetheart, wins a prize, because they are all wonderful little individuals.

How on earth, dear parents, is this preparing your darling little snowflake for the real world where there sure as hell are winners and losers, and it's just not OK to be slack and still expect to get all the blue ribbons.



> Social Engineers also did away with grading performance. If a student rates an F, mark their paper with an F;



This goes with the precious snowflake syndrome above, resulting in kids being put up to the next grade even when they have quite dismally failed their current year.
Consequently, when they should have acquired a basic education they frequently lack the basic literacy required to even fill out a Centrelink dole request form.


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2012)

Spellcheck should have picked this up in the headline.

*Probe into mistake by parademics who wrongly said a car crash victim was dead *.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-victim-was-dead/story-e6frg6nf-1226316187110


----------



## wayneL (2 April 2012)

> I think I'm getting it. *All be it* very slowly.




Albeit


----------



## Glen48 (2 April 2012)

Have a mate who has his own version of English using words like " went to a party and the food came our so we et all that"

One would think you are talking to an Alien.


----------



## Julia (2 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> Albeit



Oh my, you're brave, correcting anyone, Wayne!  I usually just grind my teeth in frustration but am unprepared to risk the ensuing chorus of "spelling nazi" if I utter a correction.



Glen48 said:


> Have a mate who has his own version of English using words like " went to a party and the food came our so we et all that"
> 
> One would think you are talking to an Alien.



Not at all.  This was a quite standard pronunciation of "ate" in parts of Britain, particularly up until the 20th centure and is still considered "proper" by many today.


----------



## bellenuit (2 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Not at all.  This was a quite standard pronunciation of "ate" in parts of Britain, particularly up until the 20th centure and is still considered "proper" by many today.




"Et" for "ate" is very common in present day Ireland too. I use both. I'm trying to figure out why I chose one over the other and I think I use "et" when talking about animals and "ate" for people. As in - the dog et it versus she ate it. I haven't really thought about it up to now, so I am not sure if I do it consistently that way.


----------



## Glen48 (2 April 2012)

Agree that was one word he used that I can think of and not sure of the spelling but he had many others almost like spoonerism's.
 I use bad grammar and spelling as a reference when I am dealing with some one to gauge the level of intelligence and to judge if the person knows his stuff. 
 The Englishmen language is the hardest to master when word like wind and wind can mean two different things, wound and wound.
 No wonder Nino Colta  ? had trouble.


----------



## burglar (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> ...
> No wonder Nino Colta  ? had trouble.




I know which Nino you meant! Haha!!


----------



## wayneL (3 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Oh my, you're brave, correcting anyone, Wayne!  I usually just grind my teeth in frustration but am unprepared to risk the ensuing chorus of "spelling nazi" if I utter a correction.




The enamel on my teeth is getting for too thin for that anymore. :


----------



## Logique (3 April 2012)

I think we need to bring Martin Ferguson in on this.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> .
> I use bad grammar and spelling as a reference when I am dealing with some one to gauge the level of intelligence and to judge if the person knows his stuff.



For you to judge others on the accuracy of their grammar and spelling means you are  very confident of your own mastery in this regard.  Is it so?


----------



## Glen48 (3 April 2012)

Far from it was a general comment, another word he uses was brung as in brung some thing upstairs so all you Shakespearean  scholars can correct me .


----------



## burglar (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Far from it was a general comment, another word he uses was brung as in brung some thing upstairs so all you Shakespearean  scholars can correct me .




You've been here a long time, so many posts, .... GSOH
Some brilliant typos obviously deliberate, whatever!

So, why are you on trial??


----------



## Ruby (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> No wonder Nino Colta  ? had trouble.




Nino Culotta


----------



## Julia (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Far from it was a general comment, another word he uses was brung as in brung some thing upstairs so all you Shakespearean  scholars can correct me .



Nothing to do with Shakespeare which I actually detest.

Antony Green, election analyst, I think most would agree is an astute, competent and intelligent individual.  Yet the following appears on his blog:



> The Rudd government completed a clean sweep of Labor government's across the country.




I'm sure your ability to judge grammar and punctuation will quickly tell us what's wrong here, Glen.

(I'm just trying to point out that to judge someone's intelligence and general competence on their capacity to spell and punctuate is a pretty flawed idea.)


----------



## Glen48 (3 April 2012)

Julia I only open my mouth to change feet and find English interesting and the play on words, puns etc the best humour available.
Anthony Green is a not like his surname when it comes to speaking, Clive James is another , Mr fry there are many with this natural talent.
 One of the best lines  would have to be Churchill " Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many too so few ".
 Mr  Burglar your referred   on trial??


----------



## Julia (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> \
> One of the best lines  would have to be Churchill " Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many too so few ".



Oh god, could you at least get a direct quote right!
".......owed by so many to so few."
Please.


----------



## Calliope (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Julia I only open my mouth to change feet and find English interesting and the play on words, puns etc the best humour available.
> Anthony Green is a not like his surname when it comes to speaking, Clive James is another , Mr fry there are many with this natural talent.
> One of the best lines  would have to be Churchill " Never in the field of human conflict has so much been owed by so many too so few ".
> Mr  Burglar your referred   on trial??




Your problem G48 , is with grammar, spelling and especially syntax. I assume your age is 64. Most people of your age would have been well grounded in these aspects of literacy in primary school.


----------



## burglar (3 April 2012)

Glen48 said:


> ...
> Mr  Burglar your referred   on trial??




The burglar is oft amused by Glen48!!

OK!


----------



## burglar (3 April 2012)

burglar notes that some here have excellent english  

Glen48 claims to be in Phillipines ... therefore needs to be proficient only in American, native dialect and Shakespearian english.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2012)

Julia said:


> ....Shakespeare which I actually detest.



Julia, surely you jest! The Bard who gave us "A feast of languages"? :

I don't find myself rushing of to see the plays, but without Shakespeare, English idiom would be so much poorer. 



> The Rudd government completed a clean sweep of Labor government's across the country.




Surely there must be grocer's genes somewhere in his ancestry.


----------



## Calliope (4 April 2012)

Julia said:


> Nothing to do with Shakespeare which I actually detest.




I am surprised that you could actually detest Shakespeare who is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. To belittle William Shakespeare is to belittle the English Language.


----------



## Logique (4 April 2012)

_Avaunt, you cullions! _ Henry V (3.2.20) to all Shakespeare belittlers.


----------



## Julia (4 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> I am surprised that you could actually detest Shakespeare who is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. To belittle William Shakespeare is to belittle the English Language.



 I didn't belittle him at all.  I'm perfectly happy to accept that everything about him is remarkable.  I simply don't enjoy that sort of language or drama.
Similarly love much music but don't especially enjoy opera.  Too florid, or something.


----------



## bellenuit (4 April 2012)

Julia said:


> I didn't belittle him at all.  I'm perfectly happy to accept that everything about him is remarkable.  I simply don't enjoy that sort of language or drama.




I agree. I appreciate and enjoy the beauty of his language, so long it is in a short quote. I find his plays boring to the extreme mainly due to the type of language. It requires too much concentration to pick up the meaning.


----------



## Calliope (4 April 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I agree. I appreciate and enjoy the beauty of his language, so long it is in a short quote. I find his plays boring to the extreme mainly due to the type of language.* It requires too much concentration to pick up the meaning*.



"Frailty, thy name is woman." 

Shakespeare has a quote for you; "For my part, it was Greek to me."

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_shakespeare_2.html#wVuMpjhdYVwsHsyR.99

He even invented an insult that fits Juliia Gillard perfectly;

"A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality."


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2012)

Julia said:


> I didn't belittle him at all.  I'm perfectly happy to accept that everything about him is remarkable.  I simply don't enjoy that sort of language or drama.
> Similarly love much music but don't especially enjoy opera.  Too florid, or something.




Yer I didn't see it as belittling, more like \/



bellenuit said:


> I find his plays boring to the extreme mainly due to the type of language. It requires too much concentration to pick up the meaning.




I've been to a small number of plays and it certainly is hard work.

But his impact on our language is great. Most of us use Shakespearean euphemisms all the time without ever realizing the source.

Yes, remarkable indeed.


----------



## sails (4 April 2012)

Found this on Bolt's blog today...:







Source: Do not ask the florist to speak English


----------



## Glen48 (4 April 2012)

That should have read Roast and Pea's  they didn't understand what cremating meant.


----------



## hja (4 April 2012)

Logique said:


> _Avaunt, you cullions! _ Henry V (3.2.20) to all Shakespeare belittlers.




A little more belittling to come ...

Is that supposed to be English or misspelt/mispronounced French? 

Here's a spelling lesson, Shakey-baby:
En avant, couillons.

or maybe he meant...

Allez vous-en, couillons.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2012)

hja said:


> A little more belittling to come ...
> 
> Is that supposed to be English or misspelt/mispronounced French?
> 
> ...




It's Middle English.

Hoist by your own petard? (ref - Hamlet Act 3, scene 4


----------



## hja (4 April 2012)

wayneL said:


> It's Middle English.
> 
> Hoist by your own petard? (ref - Hamlet Act 3, scene 4




You couldn't rearrange 'petard' out of that phrase, either, just like how you couldn't modify our flag... even though the British keep claiming that their flag's on ours, and they want it removed.

But wasn't Middle English just a more respectable name for pidgin French? 

Only stirring


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2012)

hja said:


> You couldn't rearrange 'petard' out of that phrase, either, just like how you couldn't modify our flag... even though the British keep claiming that their flag's on ours, and they want it removed.
> 
> But wasn't Middle English just a more respectable name for pidgin French?
> 
> Only stirring




More Teutonic with grudging concessions to the frogs really. :


----------



## Glen48 (4 April 2012)

Nine MSN:

At the station Mr Lovell was told to blow into a machine so officers could get a more accurate blood-alcohol reading but he frustrated the police by inhaling into the machine's mouthpiece rather than blowing.

This occurred twice, and before Mr Lovell was asked to blow a third time an officer asked him if he was going to submit to the test, to which he replied that he already had twice.

Mr Lovell was then told that if he did not submit to the test he could face a $3000 fine or 12 months in jail.

He said he understood the situation before again failing to blow into the machine.

An officer, reading from a form then asked Mr Lovell if he was "prepared" to take a blood test instead, which he also refused.

Mr Lovell was then charged with failing to submit to a breath test and appeared in Hobart Magistrates Court.

However, he was acquitted when a magistrate ruled the officer should have said "do you elect to" instead of "are you prepared to" when offering the blood test to Mr Lovell.

The magistrate said there was "a subtle but important difference" between the words used on the night of the incident and the required words.

Magistrate Rheinberger said it was important for police to make clear that there is a right to a blood test instead of a breath test.

Police appealed the decision, but had no joy at the Supreme Court of Hobart yesterday.

Justice David Porter upheld the magistrate's decision saying she was correct to note the distinction between "prepared to" and "elect to".


----------



## Logique (5 April 2012)

hja said:


> A little more belittling to come ...
> Is that supposed to be English or misspelt/mispronounced French?
> Here's a spelling lesson, Shakey-baby:
> En avant, couillons.
> ...



In context of the plot, Henry V on campaign in France, on the way to Agincourt, it fits as a borrowing from the French. _En avant_, to the front, _couillons_, cowards, as Henry whips his troops forward.  

With apologies to Julia, to whom this epithet has never applied.

A masterpiece play, one of my favourites. 

Enjoying this thread


----------



## Knobby22 (5 April 2012)

Logique said:


> In context of the plot, Henry V on campaign in France, on the way to Agincourt, it fits as a borrowing from the French. _En avant_, to the front, _couillons_, cowards, as Henry whips his troops forward.
> 
> With apologies to Julia, to whom this epithet has never applied.
> 
> ...




Did you see the movie.
Wasn't it good! ..and all said in the original Shakespearian language.


----------



## Logique (5 April 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Did you see the movie.
> Wasn't it good! ..and all said in the original Shakespearian language.



Yes, there's a 1944 film starring Sir Laurence Olivier, and then in 1989 starring Kenneth Branagh, both excellent productions.


----------



## Glen48 (5 April 2012)

Pity they don't run a lot more Black and White movies. Strangers on a Train, High Noon, as above, Casablanca, any Bogart stuff, even some of the Planet X type stuff is good just to watch the background scenes. 

Saw a early  Romeo and Juliet on Sat TV all good stuff.
 Now back to the topic.


----------



## robusta (19 April 2012)

Bloody phone I have been posting on lately has that predictive word thing where you start to type a word and it highlights the popular options for the completed word so occasionally thank you will become thankful, also it may be Yankee because I realize I need some advise.


----------



## burglar (20 April 2012)

robusta said:


> Bloody phone I have been posting on lately has that predictive word thing where you start to type a word and it highlights the popular options for the completed word so occasionally thank you will become thankful, also it may be Yankee because I realize I need some advise.



Ha Ha Ha!! 
Got my first mobile phone last winter ...
I spent the first few days saying "No, no, no!"
"NOOOOOO!!?"


----------



## Glen48 (20 April 2012)

http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/photos/25-m...eshow/autocorrect-fails-photo-1334807240.html
 You mean like these


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2012)

If language is dynamic, I predict that 'would have', 'could have' and 'should have', along with their contractions 'could've', 'would've' and 'should've' will be extinct in the English language within in one generation.

This is due to my observation of the preponderance of the use of 'would *of*' etc instead (which has been mentioned several times already).

FFS people!!!


----------



## Glen48 (10 June 2012)

All most true except it  pronounced "would  ov"as in ov...ulation


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> All most true except it  pronounced "would  ov"as in ov...ulation




Do you mean '*almost'* true?

Otherwise.....


----------



## Glen48 (10 June 2012)

True speed typing while listening to a doc.


----------



## Julia (10 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> If language is dynamic, I predict that 'would have', 'could have' and 'should have', along with their contractions 'could've', 'would've' and 'should've' will be extinct in the English language within in one generation.
> 
> This is due to my observation of the preponderance of the use of 'would *of*' etc instead (which has been mentioned several times already).
> 
> FFS people!!!



Absolutely my pet hate.  And despite how often attention is drawn to it, people on this very forum persist with it.


----------



## hja (10 June 2012)

I could put up with could'a, would'a, should'a. 

But native speakers are always going to make these spelling mistakes to approximate a phonetic quality when writing something quickly.


----------



## sails (10 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> If language is dynamic, I predict that 'would have', 'could have' and 'should have', along with their contractions 'could've', 'would've' and 'should've' will be extinct in the English language within in one generation.
> 
> This is due to my observation of the preponderance of the use of 'would *of*' etc instead (which has been mentioned several times already).
> 
> FFS people!!!





lol 5yr old granddaughter keeps using "of" instead of "if".  Must have picked it up at daycare or preschool as it's been going on for a while.  Lots of attempts to correct it as it's bad enough reading so many ofs (lol - is that a word?) in the wrong place without hearing it as well.  

The other day she was prattling as good as any female and she suddenly stopped and said, "I just said IF"... yay, I think we are getting there!


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> I could put up with could'a, would'a, should'a.
> 
> But native speakers are always going to make these spelling mistakes to approximate a phonetic quality when writing something quickly.




They are? Only perhaps because of the moronic phonetic spelling experiment the social engineers tried a few years ago. Blind Freddy knew it was going to result in these difficulties with non-thinkers.

People think of the meanings of the words 'of' and 'have'. They are not just fillers, they have grammatical import. This makes the use of 'would of' etc an absolute nonsense.


----------



## hja (11 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> They are? Only perhaps because of the moronic phonetic spelling experiment the social engineers tried a few years ago. Blind Freddy knew it was going to result in these difficulties with non-thinkers.
> 
> People think of the meanings of the words 'of' and 'have'. They are not just fillers, they have grammatical import. This makes the use of 'would of' etc an absolute nonsense.




It's simpler than that. I meant that the "uv" sound in an unstressed syllable can be spelt phonetically as "of" or " 've" regardless of the intended meaning.

A non-native speaker, who already has trouble speaking, will put more effort into orthography, so isn't likely to make this spelling mistake.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> It's simpler than that. I meant that the "uv" sound in an unstressed syllable can be spelt phonetically as "of" or " 've" regardless of the intended meaning.
> 
> A non-native speaker, who already has trouble speaking, will put more effort into orthography, so isn't likely to make this spelling mistake.




I can never recall this mistake before the phonetic spelling travesty of the 80's and 90's. And speaking of orthography, why go to the trouble of getting the un-phonetic spelling of could, would and should right, and the f*** up the contraction of 'have'?

What next? cood unt, wood unt and shood unt?


----------



## Calliope (11 June 2012)

My pet hate is the almost universal Australian habit of inserting the "r" sound in words where it doesn't belong e.g. "elecshern". The "ion" suffix which should be pronounced "shn" is now pronounced "shern". And it's not only "ion" but this inanity is propagated by the ABC which was once our role model on spelling and grammar and syntax.

One of my favourites on words ending in "ence" is;

"The following program is rated M for mature 'audiernces'. It may contain 'violernce'."

My spell-check is going haywire.


----------



## hja (11 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> I can never recall this mistake before the phonetic spelling travesty of the 80's and 90's. And speaking of orthography, why go to the trouble of getting the un-phonetic spelling of could, would and should right, and the f*** up the contraction of 'have'?
> 
> What next? cood unt, wood unt and shood unt?



I guess it came about from a time just before then when everyone started getting home computers and were only able to use 4 fingers to type slowly. So any kind of abbreviated spelling aided their typing. 

But the "of" spelling for "uv" is a classic native mistake, going by the sounding out of the syllable.

I've seen the wud and shud contractions.


----------



## hja (11 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> My pet hate is the almost universal Australian habit of inserting the "r" sound in words where it doesn't belong e.g. "elecshern". The "ion" suffix which should be pronounced "shn" is now pronounced "shern". And it's not only "ion" but this inanity is propagated by the ABC which was once our role model on spelling and grammar and syntax.
> 
> One of my favourites on words ending in "ence" is;
> 
> ...




I hate cistern pronounced as syst'n! 

To me, at least over the phone, "cistuurn" is much clearer, and cannot be confused with system: "syst'm"


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> I guess it came about from a time just before then when everyone started getting home computers and were only able to use 4 fingers to type slowly. So any kind of abbreviated spelling aided their typing.
> 
> But the "of" spelling for "uv" is a classic native mistake, going by the sounding out of the syllable.
> 
> I've seen the wud and shud contractions.




It seems you are making excuses, rather than holding out for better (IOW correct) standards.


----------



## hja (11 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> It seems you are making excuses, rather than holding out for better (IOW correct) standards.




I'm not sure what you mean by "excuses" but it is well known by linguists that this type of mistake is a native one and is due to spelling by sounds. It's not a grammatical error in the sense that people are intending for a meaning other than what is implied by the correct contraction.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "excuses" but it is well known by linguists that this type of mistake is a native one and is due to spelling by sounds. It's not a grammatical error in the sense that people are intending for a meaning other than what is implied by the correct contraction.




Everybody knows that the English language is not spelt phonetically, hence reading English is in many respects akin to those languages whose written languages are pictographical, eg Chinese and Japanese.

I read for the longest time via recognizing the shape of the words rather than the spelling, because of poor eyesight. Hence misspelling, even if phonetically correct (though orthographically incorrect) causes hiccoughs and lack of flow.

Most readers read the same way. Ergo, incorrect spelling not only has phonetic implications (or not, as the case may be), but also comprehensive implications.

E.G. Mistakes of their, there and they're cause interruptions of flow and comprehension.

'Linguists' may document these absurd mistakes, but that does not make them any less absurd.


----------



## Julia (11 June 2012)

Then there's ceremony, frequently pronounced on the ABC at least in a very peculiar way that I don't know how to reproduce in letters.  They seem to break it up into four separately pronounced syllables or something.

And 'bowl' which I'd pronounce 'boll', yet they manage to make it sound like two syllables ' 'bow-ell'.

My recall of when the deterioration in spelling and pronunciation occurred is when some bright spark decided neither were really important and  'communication' was all that mattered.  Then there was the 'whole word' and 'whole sentence' recognition thing, and finally now there's a reversion to actually teaching spelling and grammar.
They'll have to re-educate the teachers,  however, before this will be too successful.


----------



## hja (11 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> Everybody knows that the English language is not spelt phonetically, hence reading English is in many respects akin to those languages whose written languages are pictographical, eg Chinese and Japanese.
> 
> I read for the longest time via recognizing the shape of the words rather than the spelling, because of poor eyesight. Hence misspelling, even if phonetically correct (though orthographically incorrect) causes hiccoughs and lack of flow.
> 
> ...



My point was, those words are being spelt by "sound".

Chinese is not based on anything phonetic so English is nothing like Chinese in that sense; English has a strong phonetic aspect, even with all its exceptions and orthographic legacies.

There, their, they're are all homophones so natives would tend to confuse one seplling for another but these mistakes would not affect meaning. Again, this boils down to spelling according to how something sounds.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

hja said:


> My point was, those words are being spelt by "sound".



Of course they are. But that does not in any way condone the mistake.



> Chinese is not based on anything phonetic so English is nothing like Chinese in that sense; English has a strong phonetic aspect, even with all its exceptions and orthographic legacies.




There is a phonetic 'legacy' as you call it, but in English, unlike other European languages, phonetic spelling is incorrect and will lead the speaker astray due to the extensive borrowing of word, spelling and pronunciation from other languages.



> There, their, they're are all homophones so natives would tend to confuse one seplling for another but these mistakes would not affect meaning. Again, this boils down to spelling according to how something sounds.




Homophonically confusing yes, but grammatically unambiguous, which alleviates the homophenic confusion. Grammatical/contextual considerations clarify which is to be used.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (11 June 2012)

That's a whole nuther thing.  

A-whole-nother thing.  LOL

A whole other thing.  Bit better.

A different thing altogether.


----------



## todster (11 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> Everybody knows that the English language is not spelt phonetically, hence reading English is in many respects akin to those languages whose written languages are pictographical, eg Chinese and Japanese.
> 
> I read for the longest time via recognizing the shape of the words rather than the spelling, because of poor eyesight. Hence misspelling, even if phonetically correct (though orthographically incorrect) causes hiccoughs and lack of flow.
> 
> ...




And if you are that f king boring you can be a moderator like me and spend your life here lol


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2012)

todster said:


> And if you are that f king boring you can be a moderator like me and spend your life here lol




Or you can just be an @sshole... The choices are endless.


----------



## johenmo (12 June 2012)

Linguists see language as evolving.  English has done that - look at texts written in the 1600's or 1700's.  So it is natural that words change, in terms of spelling, pronunciation & meaning over extended periods of time - not necessarily all at the same time.  Our family are grammar nazis (the term is in urban language now) and strongly dislike bad spelling etc..

We spent quite a few years living in NZ and the language has evolved to have words that sound the same & one can have quite strong debates about the "true" way to pronounce these words.  "Hear/Here vs. Hair/Hare"  All 4 words have the same sound to many people in the south island.

Many of these changes are learned.  A couple of particular items is the replacement of "-ing" with "-ink" and "th" with "ff" (assuming it's double f).  So nothing becomes nuffink and thing becomes fink.  This occurs to the extent that a couple of generations later it's written as "fink", though the sentence obviously implies it is "think".  This example is something I have observed first-hand.

And this does show up with teachers - my eldest got into trouble at age 11 correcting her teacher.  The eldest went to do linguistics & then speech pathology, so it must be genetic!  And it does concern me that those who have a responsibility to shape and help improve don't have the skills themselves.  A product of the swing away to a more feel-good style of learning.

I am a reasonably good at spelling, and have reasonable grammar skills but my understanding of grammar is mediocre.  Grammar is something that needs to be taught but would face much opposition.


----------



## burglar (12 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> Or you can just be an @sshole... The choices are endless.




I like "a$$bandit" but in the end I chose "burglar"!


----------



## Julia (12 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> We spent quite a few years living in NZ and the language has evolved to have words that sound the same & one can have quite strong debates about the "true" way to pronounce these words.  "Hear/Here vs. Hair/Hare"  All 4 words have the same sound to many people in the south island.



I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.



> Many of these changes are learned.  A couple of particular items is the replacement of "-ing" with "-ink" and "th" with "ff" (assuming it's double f).  So nothing becomes nuffink and thing becomes fink.  This occurs to the extent that a couple of generations later it's written as "fink", though the sentence obviously implies it is "think".  This example is something I have observed first-hand.



I wouldn't dispute that you have observed this, but I do dispute that it's something that's progressive which is what you're implying with the suggestion that 'a couple of generations later' it is written as such.

I have only ever heard these variations used by people who have had limited education and commonly those from some regions in the UK where it represents the local patois.
I've never actually known anyone who used either of these pretty ghastly pronunciations.



> And it does concern me that those who have a responsibility to shape and help improve don't have the skills themselves.



Agree.   Some of the teachers reflect their own woeful education.


----------



## kincella (12 June 2012)

are we allowed to use the term...wankers on ASF ?
for me, it is similar to, or  like the term .... bludgers
ie, when wanking or bludging....they are not working

I recently called the AWU....the australian wankers union....
and my post was moderated, for same on another forum
I also used the same description for FWA
ie, as  fair wankers australia

back to you, the speech police for your response
which will it be, ?  or  or


----------



## wayneL (13 June 2012)

Julia said:


> I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.




But to a foreign ear they are quite similar. I have had some comical conversations with myself here.

A client has a horse called "Beer"; I think to myself that is a funny name, even for a horse. I find out months later it's "Bear". Another lady introduced herself as ******* Beard; again I think that's a rather unusual name. I referred to her as that for at least eighteen months until I tried to find her land-line number in the phone book... It took me a while to figure out I should be looking for ****** BAIRD. LOL

When we say eggs here, most people hear AGGS, coupled with a puzzled expression.

Lastly, the Azaria Chamberlain decision was all over the news yesterday, but I was wondering where the hell "Ears Rock" is.


----------



## johenmo (13 June 2012)

Julia said:


> I grew up in the SI of NZ and just can't agree that the above words have anything like the same sound.



  It's not everyone, of course but a surprising amount who do think that.  In one case at work, I got a dictionary to show how the words were pronounced differently.  A couple of people were genuinely surprised.  And a local hairdressing salon was called "Hair-O" - which we took to be "hero" because hair-o made no sense.  Willing to be corrected if we misinterpreted that.  And as WayneL says Beer & bear - first time at kindy we heard "we're going on a beer hunt" it made us chuckle.  I never heard it much in the NI but they are a different breed up there (lived in both isles).  Maybe it is more obvious to a foreign ear.    Just like the Oz accent is so broad in some areas that it sounds like they're speaking through their noses.



Julia said:


> I wouldn't dispute that you have observed this, but I do dispute that it's something that's progressive which is what you're implying with the suggestion that 'a couple of generations later' it is written as such.
> 
> I have only ever heard these variations used by people who have had limited education and commonly those from some regions in the UK where it represents the local patois.
> I've never actually known anyone who used either of these pretty ghastly pronunciations.



I'm quoting from a card written by my nephew's son, & my sister says it too - so that's 3 generations & it was that the word was *written* by a 9 year old that really surprised me.  My speech path daughter said it's more common than people think & it's learned, not pathological/medical in nature.  Essentially if that's what they are exposed to most of the time then that's what they learn.  And this is sort of how new dialects spring up i.e. it becomes the local patois, as you say.  It's also spoken by her daughters & some of their kids - whereas the rest of us siblings & our kids don't use the ff or ink sounds.  

As for education - I agree less education increases the likelihood of mispronunciation, but the number of people i hear say "pre-formance" instead of performance is staggering - with master level degrees, as well.  But most of them have engineering and science qualifications, so maybe that says something!

One of  the most interesting comments in NZ was lady who was proud that her daughter at primary school was a "bowel monitor".  Took the other half a few more sentences to get in context- she said "bell monitor".  Never heard bell pronounced as differently as that so I consider that a one-off.


----------



## CanOz (13 June 2012)

LOL, poor Kiwis! Very funny thread, I love to hear local dialects and especially the NZ ones!

CanOz


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> One of  the most interesting comments in NZ was lady who was proud that her daughter at primary school was a "bowel monitor".  Took the other half a few more sentences to get in context- she said "bell monitor".  Never heard bell pronounced as differently as that so I consider that a one-off.




I doubt that the word "bell" would have sounded like "bowel". She was probably saying "bll" i.e. 'bell" without the vowel.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2012)

Standards have dropped. Gives the saying 'he only had an 8th grade education' a whole new meaning.

*This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society
and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
*
*8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895 *

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications. 
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run.' 
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation. 
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar. 


Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold? 
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare? 
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000.. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals? 
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent. 
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods? 
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt 


U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus 
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States 
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas 
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion. 
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865. 


Orthography (Time, one hour) 
[Do we even know what this is??]
1. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals 
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each. 
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last. 
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, fain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks 
and by syllabication. 


Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ? 
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America 
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco 
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each..
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude? 
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth. 

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete.


----------



## Glen48 (13 June 2012)

Arithmetic Q 7 $20 a meter??? Did they have metrics then or use both.
I doubt many would pass that today.


----------



## johenmo (13 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> I doubt that the word "bell" would have sounded like "bowel". She was probably saying "bll" i.e. 'bell" without the vowel.




Well, doubt no more.  Two of us heard it and we both heard the same thing.  The only time I'be heard such a thing so it's a one-off.  Kiwis are more "bill" - a becomes e, e becomes i and i becomes u is a rough rule.  That's why they hear (or is that here or hare or hair!!) Aussies say the number "sex".


----------



## johenmo (13 June 2012)

Impressive test - doubt many learned adults would pass that, even if it was in their own units of measurement.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Well, doubt no more.  Two of us heard it and we both heard the same thing.  The only time I'be heard such a thing so it's a one-off.  Kiwis are more "bill" - a becomes e, e becomes i and i becomes u is a rough rule.  That's why they hear (or is that here or hare or hair!!) Aussies say the number "sex".



All this is simply about accent.  Not really much to do with spelling and grammar.


----------



## johenmo (13 June 2012)

Julia said:


> All this is simply about accent.  Not really much to do with spelling and grammar.




re the bell comment - yes.

Consider accent leading to different pronunciation over time - why couldn't it impact spelling & possibly grammar?  As it becomes mainstream or normal.  Look at US spelling - English origins for a fair part of it yet it has been changing.


----------



## johenmo (21 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Many of these changes are learned.  A couple of particular items is the replacement of "-ing" with "-ink" and "th" with "ff" (assuming it's double f).  So nothing becomes nuffink and thing becomes fink.  This occurs to the extent that a couple of generations later it's written as "fink", though the sentence obviously implies it is "think".  This example is something I have observed first-hand.
> 
> I'm quoting from a card written by my nephew's son, & my sister says it too - so that's 3 generations & it was that the word was written by a 9 year old that really surprised me. My speech path daughter said it's more common than people think & it's learned, not pathological/medical in nature. Essentially if that's what they are exposed to most of the time then that's what they learn. And this is sort of how new dialects spring up i.e. it becomes the local patois, as you say. It's also spoken by her daughters & some of their kids - whereas the rest of us siblings & our kids don't use the ff or ink sounds.






Julia said:


> I wouldn't dispute that you have observed this, but I do dispute that it's something that's progressive which is what you're implying with the suggestion that 'a couple of generations later' it is written as such.
> 
> I have only ever heard these variations used by people who have had limited education and commonly those from some regions in the UK where it represents the local patois.
> I've never actually known anyone who used either of these pretty ghastly pronunciations.




Julia - this is from today's facebook page of the same family (person is in high school):  "Comment for somethink i have all ways wanted to tell u".  You can where the g has been replaced by a k.  Luckily the "th" remains.  Makes me shudder...


----------



## Julia (21 June 2012)

johenmo said:


> Julia - this is from today's facebook page of the same family (person is in high school):  "Comment for somethink i have all ways wanted to tell u".  You can where the g has been replaced by a k.  Luckily the "th" remains.  Makes me shudder...



Oh dear.   I can't think of anything to say in response, johenmo.


----------



## Glen48 (21 June 2012)

Don't worry they don't know nothfing.


----------



## sails (21 June 2012)

Oh dear - I was just reading the local school's newsletter and found this written by one of the staff (not teaching staff), but you would think the person typing it would have a spell checker or at least be able to spell correctly: 



> How time fly’s,...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 June 2012)

Glen48 said:


> Don't worry they don't know nothfing.




Sorry to correct you mate.

It's nuffinkt.

gg


----------



## burglar (24 June 2012)

Just bin watchun the F! 
... "gridded up" ...?
... "pitted" ...?
Wat's with these dudes?


----------



## basilio (25 June 2012)

> Standards have dropped. Gives the saying 'he only had an 8th grade education' a whole new meaning.
> 
> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina , Kansas , USA . It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society
> and Library in Salina , and reprinted by the Salina Journal.  Calliope




That was an interesting blast from the past Calliope. And it certainly has been passed around the internet on many sites.

I think however it might not have been the actual exam for Grade 8 students.  I did a check on the Truth or Fiction website which  tries to get to the heart of many email viral message.


> 1895 Salina, Kansas Eighth Grade Graduation Exam-Unproven!
> Summary of eRumor
> The email lists questions from what it says is an exam required for eighth grade graduation in 1895 in Salina, Kansas.  It is described as an example of how much more educated an eighth grader was a hundred years ago than today.
> 
> ...



http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/1895exam.htm


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2012)

basilio said:


> I did a check on the Truth or Fiction website which  tries to get to the heart of many email viral message.




Thanks basilio. Your conversion to a seeker of the truth in such a trivial matter is refreshing. Let's hope it is reflected in your GW posts.


----------



## basilio (25 June 2012)

Well Calliope when you and the rest of the CC deniers decide to recognise some  climate science that is measured, peer reviewed and real instead of the fanciful BS that you don't even bother to quote anymore we might have a discussion.

But otherwise it really is a waste of time isn't it ? 

 _____________________________________________________________________________________

And it wasn't that trivial to understand that a very widely quoted  email was in fact probably misleading. I wasn't having a go at you in any way. The update was just to put everyone on the same page.


----------



## Moderator (25 June 2012)

Calliope said:


> Thanks basilio.






basilio said:


> Well Calliope




OK, so its one snark to each side in the GW war. 
It will now return to spelling and grammar please.

GW posts in the any of the multiple GW threads please, not elsewhere.


----------



## Calliope (25 June 2012)

Moderator said:


> GW posts in the any of the multiple GW threads please, not elsewhere.




Good luck hunting Snarks:


----------



## burglar (25 June 2012)

Moderator said:


> OK, so its one snark to each side in the GW war.
> It will now return to spelling and grammar please.
> 
> GW posts in the any of the multiple GW threads please, not elsewhere.




GW?
Is that abbr. for Good Will?


----------



## MrBurns (26 June 2012)

Winston Churchill was once asked about his position on whisky.
Here's how he answered:

"If you mean whisky, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody
monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home,
creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the
mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples
men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into
the bottomless pit of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and
hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of
my being."

"However, if by whisky you mean the oil of conversation, the
philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when
good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the
warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean good cheer, the
stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly
gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man
to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and
heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours
into our treasuries untold millions of pounds each year, that provides
tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our
dumb , our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways,
hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then
my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it.


----------



## burglar (1 July 2012)

"Goodification"?


----------



## Ruby (1 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> Linguists see language as evolving.  English has done that - look at texts written in the 1600's or 1700's......
> 
> 
> Many of these changes are learned.  A couple of particular items is the replacement of "-ing" with "-ink" and "th" with "ff" (assuming it's double f).  So nothing becomes nuffink and thing becomes fink.  This occurs to the extent that a couple of generations later it's written as "fink", though the sentence obviously implies it is "think".  This example is something I have observed first-hand.




I know this reply is a bit belated, but.........

To suggest that the deplorable practices of replacing the suffix "ing" with "ink" and replacing "th" with "f" are examples of the evolution of our language is quite erroneous.  They are examples of ignorance and lack of education.  When I was young it was considered extremely common to say "somethink" or "nuffink", and I still consider it so.  Neither examples are new - London cockneys said "nuffink" and "anyfink" more than 100 years ago.

Language evolves as new words are added to the lexicon ("computer", "telephone", "internet", "movie" or "cinema" were not around in the 18th century!), old words disappear (we no longer use "thou", "oft" or "hath "), or words change their usage (40 years ago "gay" meant "happy"!).  Pronunciation changes (as in the great vowel shift of the 14th and 15th Centuries, and even just in different localities), and we adopt and adapt words and phrases from other languages.

This is language evolution, and there is a huge difference between the two!!


----------



## Logique (1 July 2012)

Ruby said:


> ..(40 years ago "gay" meant "happy"!)....



Hi Ruby, that's the one thing I hold against gays, they've pinched a perfectly good adjective and made it an exclusive-usage noun.

On another subject, the evolution of compound words has been interesting. Printout, logoff, kickoff, flowchart, backup, website, roadmap, pricetag, healthcare, cellphone.


----------



## johenmo (1 July 2012)

Ruby said:


> I know this reply is a bit belated, but.........
> 
> To suggest that the deplorable practices of replacing the suffix "ing" with "ink" and replacing "th" with "f" are examples of the evolution of our language is quite erroneous.  They are examples of ignorance and lack of education.  When I was young it was considered extremely common to say "somethink" or "nuffink", and I still consider it so.  Neither examples are new - London cockneys said "nuffink" and "anyfink" more than 100 years ago.
> 
> ...




Agree with the last two paragraphs, and share your dislike of the first.  When the deplorable practices become so widespread that they become the norm (amongst the majority) then the language has been proven to have evolved.  Before that it is evolving - the example given becoming more widespread.  Saying "haitch" is another which is more than mainstream - teachers are teaching it by saying it, TV reinforces it by saying it.  A newcomer is the introduction of the invisible "h" into the spoken word "Australia", giving an "sh" (ess-aitch) sound.  Another is the growing popularity of preformance instead of performance.

I am aware of the London cockney dialect - a dialect being a regional or social class speech pattern as opposed to, in it's other common usage, a separate language within a region or country that is considered inferior to the mainstream (as you find in France and other European countries).  Because they are considered wrong by us at our time doesn't mean they won't be or haven't become part of changes to language.  Your statement "_...it was considered extremely common to say "somethink" or "nuffink", and I still consider it so._" would be considered by some as an example of social classification which further supports it as a regional dialect.  

So you consider the US as spelling and saying things incorrectly, rather than having evolved into  into a different accent and dialect?  I notice they put seem to put the em-PHA-sis on the wrong syl-LA-ble.


----------



## Ruby (1 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> When the deplorable practices become so widespread that they become the norm (amongst the majority) then the language has been proven to have evolved.  Before that it is evolving - the example given becoming more widespread.




"ink" instead of "ing" and "ff" instead of "th" have not become the norm - far from it - and they are not part of a regional dialect.  They are used by people scattered throughout our society who are too ignorant or too lazy to speak properly.  I don't see them as becoming an accepted part of our changing language because they have not "evolved" to be any more acceptable now than they were 100 years ago. (I remember my grandmother expressing her abhorrence at such utterances.)


----------



## Ruby (1 July 2012)

Logique said:


> Hi Ruby, that's the one thing I hold against gays, they've pinched a perfectly good adjective and made it an exclusive-usage noun.




Oh, I do agree!



> On another subject, the evolution of compound words has been interesting. Printout, logoff, kickoff, flowchart, backup, website, roadmap, pricetag, healthcare, cellphone.




Yes, wonderful examples of how language changes to suit our changing society.


----------



## IFocus (1 July 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Winston Churchill was once asked about his position on whisky.
> Here's how he answered:
> 
> "If you mean whisky, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody
> ...





Great quote Mr Burns


----------



## johenmo (2 July 2012)

Ruby said:


> ... have not "evolved" to be any more acceptable ...



  Acceptable to whom?  Obviously not you.  Please don't hinge our discussion on this specific example.  It was raised as an annoying trait which is spreading.  I would hazard a guess this particular example is partly spreading because people move.  And being ignorant of a currently accepted pronunciation does not prevent an incorrect pronunciation becoming a norm - which is what has happened for lots of words.

Saying thwee instead of three is more London cockney than broad cockney.  Rogalinski (2011) claims that features of the cockney accent have become standard.  And this is what I was saying - that over time language changes by things coming in and dropping, wheteher they are right/acceptable or not.

It is Received Pronunciation that is considered the model (think BBC english).

There are many causes of language change - borrowing of words from foreign languages, cultural environment, principle of least effort (e.g. going to becomes gonna) and more.  

Consider this from David Rosewarne (linguistics lecturer), who originated the term Estuary English in 1984:  "It is interesting to speculate on the future of "Estuary English". In the long run it may influence the speech of all but the linguistically most isolated, among the highest and lowest socio-economic groups. Both could become linguistically conservative minorities. The highest may endeavour to retain their chosen variety of speech and the lowest their unmodified regional accents. The majority may be composed of speakers of "Estuary English" and those for whom it may form part of their pronunciation. The latter group might use certain features of "Estuary English" in combination with elements of whatever their regional speech might be.

For many, RP has long served to disguise origins. "Estuary English" may now be taking over this function. For large and influential sections of the young, the new model for general imitation may already be "Estuary English", which may become the RP of the future."


----------



## Julia (2 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> Acceptable to whom?  Obviously not you.  Please don't hinge our discussion on this specific example.  It was raised as an annoying trait which is spreading.



You keep saying this.  It's absolutely not something I've experienced and obviously neither has Ruby.
Perhaps it relates to your environment for some reason.
I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone at all pronounce the ending "ing" as "ink".
It would be at least two decades ago.


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2012)

> NINE years after her three children were murdered and their bodies dumped in a hot spa, Shirley Singh had "horrible visions" as a Queensland jury delivered guilty verdicts against Massimo "Max" Sica.
> 
> Defiant to the end of Queensland's longest criminal trial, Sica, the former boyfriend of Mrs Singh's daughter Neelma, said from the dock: *"I didn't kill no one."*




I'd give him life for his assault on the English language.


----------



## Glen48 (4 July 2012)

Nuffing twoit his way of saying guilty.


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2012)

johenmo said:


> "Estuary English" may now be taking over this function. For large and influential sections of the young, the new model for general imitation may already be "Estuary English", which may become the RP of the future."




Please God, no!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CanOz (4 July 2012)

Julia said:


> I cannot remember the last time I heard anyone at all pronounce the ending "ing" as "ink".
> It would be at least two decades ago.




The last time i heard that was having a few beers with my mate in Australia...he doesn't actually say 'nothing'...he says noth-ink.

Perhaps its the crowd you hang around with Juila...

CanOz


----------



## Julia (4 July 2012)

CanOz said:


> The last time i heard that was having a few beers with my mate in Australia...he doesn't actually say 'nothing'...he says noth-ink.
> 
> Perhaps its the crowd you hang around with Juila...
> 
> CanOz



Undoubtedly true, thank goodness.  The day I start hanging around with people who attach "ink" to the "ing"  endings of words will be the day I've lost my marbles.

At the same time, I talk to shop assistants etc, and happen to live in a regional town where education levels are probably lower than in many parts of Australia, and I have still not heard this egregious assault on the language.


----------



## Julia (4 December 2012)

What is the problem with the use of apostrophes?
We have articulate people on this forum who misuse them.
eg the lack of an apostrophe as in "your"  instead of  "you're" (short for "you are".)
"Your" relates to e.g. your book as in the book belonging to you.

And then there are all the gratuitous and totally inappropriate apostrophes inserted into words which should just have an 's' added to denote the plural:
We see "ratio's"   "Portfolio's".  If it's more than one ratio, then it's simply ratios.  Nothing to do with the use of the possessive apostrophe.  

I feel almost obliged to apologise for being what some will call picky.  But reading this day after day over months finally gets to me.


----------



## MrBurns (4 December 2012)

Laziness and uncorrected typos
That's me what about everyone else ?


----------



## Julia (4 December 2012)

How is it lazy or a typo to insert a redundant and inappropriate apostrophe?

(I knew I'd regret making that post.)


----------



## McLovin (4 December 2012)

I don't usually re-read my posts when I type them. So you basically get a stream coming straight out of my brain, which unfortunately will include typos and the "your", "you're" mistake.

Who and whom is a big one for me. I get that muddled up all the time. I really need to learn my objects and subjects!


----------



## MrBurns (4 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How is it lazy or a typo to insert a redundant and inappropriate apostrophe?
> 
> (I knew I'd regret making that post.)




I was referring to the lack of not the incorrect usage of


----------



## nulla nulla (5 December 2012)

Julia said:


> ........egregious.......




This is only the second time I have seen/heard this word used. The first time was in "Pirates of the Caribean" when Captian Jack Sparrow provided the correct enunciation to a harlot in Tortega. I had to look it up. Today the meaning has taken on a negative connotation where originaly it could be used in a complementary manner.

You learn something every day. (apologies for any spelling errors.)


----------



## MrBurns (5 December 2012)

I'm noticing a lot of grammatical errors now alarmingly on TV news, weather reports, finance reports etc , this if let to continue will corrupt the language completely.


----------



## Ruby (13 December 2012)

Julia said:


> How is it lazy or a typo to insert a redundant and inappropriate apostrophe?
> 
> (I knew I'd regret making that post.)




I'm with you Julia, so don't have any regrets about your post!  What is even more amazing (and irritating) is seeing a sentence like this: "I sent the *photo's *to my *friends*."  If one plural requires the apostrophe, why not the other? It is not even logical.  And yet if I point it out I am met with blank stares.  I think we have a moral obligation to attempt to uphold standards in spelling and grammar.


----------



## Calliope (13 December 2012)

Ruby said:


> I think we have a moral obligation to attempt to uphold standards in spelling and grammar.




It's a lost cause Ruby. English grammar is not taught in schools any more and it's not likely to be. The present generation of teachers is woefully ignorant in English grammar, and couldn't teach it even if it was in the syllabus.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

Ruby said:


> I'm with you Julia, so don't have any regrets about your post!  What is even more amazing (and irritating) is seeing a sentence like this: "I sent the *photo's *to my *friends*."  If one plural requires the apostrophe, why not the other? It is not even logical.  And yet if I point it out I am met with blank stares.  I think we have a moral obligation to attempt to uphold standards in spelling and grammar.



Ah, bless you, Ruby, for the encouragement.  The woeful standards are so widespread that I feel almost guilty on the rare occasions I take issue with grammar or punctuation.  The accusation of 'grammar/spelling nazi' is not uncommon.  It would be easy to point out at least twenty grammatical or punctuation errors every day on this forum, even by quite eloquent posters, but better to bite the tongue for the sake of peace.  



Calliope said:


> It's a lost cause Ruby. English grammar is not taught in schools any more and it's not likely to be. The present generation of teachers is woefully ignorant in English grammar, and couldn't teach it even if it was in the syllabus.



No, Calliope.  Please let's not give up.


----------



## tinhat (13 December 2012)

Ruby said:


> I'm with you Julia, so don't have any regrets about your post!  What is even more amazing (and irritating) is seeing a sentence like this: "I sent the *photo's *to my *friends*."  If one plural requires the apostrophe, why not the other? It is not even logical.  And yet if I point it out I am met with blank stares.  I think we have a moral obligation to attempt to uphold standards in spelling and grammar.




Egad! I can't believe I'm posting to a spelling and grammar conversation. An apostrophe can be used to show plural of an abbreviation. Photographs becomes photo's.


----------



## Julia (13 December 2012)

tinhat said:


> Egad! I can't believe I'm posting to a spelling and grammar conversation. An apostrophe can be used to show plural of an abbreviation. Photographs becomes photo's.



Sure, but such a practice is almost never seen and can lead to ambiguity.  If I were reading a sentence where you were referring to photo's, meaning the plural of one photo (a word we all clearly understand as short for photograph) I think the average reader would find their comprehension of the sentence interrupted while he/she wondered if you were somehow referring to the possessive.

Sorry.  A very meandering way of saying I've never actually seen this in common use and think it could confuse the reader.

Interesting point, though, so thanks for your contribution.


----------



## trainspotter (19 December 2013)

*lose*  [looz]  verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.

1.to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.
4. to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.
5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.

*loose*  [loos]  adjective, loos·er, loos·est.

1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end.
2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night.
3. uncombined, as a chemical element.
4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose.
5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms.

*It's not that HARD !!!!!!!! *


----------



## burglar (19 December 2013)

trainspotter said:


> *lose*  [looz]  verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.
> 
> 1.to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
> 2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
> ...




Normally I am not a spelling-Nazi! :
Whinging or loosing?
But these two words are *the* most important in our universe.


----------



## trainspotter (19 December 2013)

burglar said:


> Normally I am not a spelling-Nazi! :
> Whinging or loosing?
> But these two words are *the* most important in our universe.




Could be a loose whinger or a whinging loser I s'pose? :


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 August 2014)

trainspotter said:


> *lose*  [looz]  verb (used with object), lost, los·ing.
> 
> 1.to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
> 2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
> ...




Disputably the most misspelled word on the internet.. Lose is opposite to win and loose is opposite to tight. Easy way to remember.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Disputably the most misspelled word on the internet.. Lose is opposite to win and loose is opposite to tight. Easy way to remember.



There would be quite some competition from "your" instead of "you're"     and    "there" instead of "they're".


----------



## Duckman#72 (3 August 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Disputably the most misspelled word on the internet.. Lose is opposite to win and loose is opposite to tight. Easy way to remember.




I was always taught when comparing the two words...."lose - loses the extra o"

Duckman


----------



## pixel (4 August 2014)

nulla nulla said:


> This is only the second time I have seen/heard this word used. The first time was in "Pirates of the Caribean" when Captian Jack Sparrow provided the correct enunciation to a harlot in Tortega. I had to look it up. Today the meaning has taken on a negative connotation where originaly it could be used in a *complementary *manner.
> 
> You learn something every day. (apologies for any spelling errors.)




That's another one of my favourite nits to pick:
complementary denotes an additional component that makes something more complete.
complimentary pays someone a compliment and/or adds something without extra charge

How often do we see those two used in the wrong context! 

... and don't get me started on "definately". That is *definitely NOT *an English word.


----------



## burglar (4 August 2014)

pixel said:


> ... don't get me started ...




'Taint easy. Take for instance "any more".

The dictionary gives "anymore" as well as "any more"!


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2014)

I'm still wondering when 'of' became interchangeable with 'have'.

Surely it can't be too long before sentences like "I of to go to the loo" appear, or "I of twenty dollars in my wallet".


----------



## Ves (14 January 2015)

I have noticed that this one has been mixed up a lot on the forums lately  (maybe it's just one person and I keep seeing their posts).

"Of course"   - an informal way of saying 'yes' or to give someone permission to do something. 

"Off course" - used when a object doesn't follow a planned, or intended, route.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2015)

Yes, I've noticed that too.  But nowhere near as common as "their"  "they're"  "there".

Another one which comes up from time to time is 'here, here' instead of 'hear, hear'.  How does the expression 'here, here' possibly make sense in wishing to endorse a sentiment, viz 'hear that over again'?


----------



## McLovin (14 January 2015)

"Mind due" really gets me.


----------



## burglar (14 January 2015)

wayneL said:


> ... "I of twenty dollars in my wallet".




With inflation that becomes "Fiddy" bucks, m8.


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

Well, you know, we aren't supposed to start sentences with conjunctions in general and fragment sentences with coordinating conjunctions. Although many people can't help but using subordinate conjunctions as sentence starters. Oh well.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2015)

McLovin said:


> "Mind due" really gets me.



It took me several seconds to figure out what that was supposed to be.



Tisme said:


> Well, you know, we aren't supposed to start sentences with conjunctions in general and fragment sentences with coordinating conjunctions. Although many people can't help but using subordinate conjunctions as sentence starters. Oh well.



That was certainly the case when you and I were taught grammar, but now old fashioned.  
It often makes sense in terms of conveying emphasis .
I first noticed it about twenty years ago in fiction and op ed pieces.


----------



## Tisme (14 January 2015)

I like portmanteaus like:

frenemy;
turducken;
mockumentary;
etc.

New ones seem to crop up regularly on Facebook and Twitter.


----------



## burglar (14 January 2015)

McLovin said:


> "Mind due" really gets me.




In the case of some ASX miners, "Mine overdue!"


----------



## Calliope (14 January 2015)

McLovin said:


> "Mind due" really gets me.




I have never seen "mind you" spelt like that...but in pronunciation it's normal Strine. It's the way we normally talk 
e..g.;

"Jegoda the footy?"

Friend: "Nar dingo - sorten tv."

"Waddya think of Smithy? Idney great!?"

"Eeza rep bairg."

"Eediddit without retrine

And doansay we don't


----------



## McLovin (14 January 2015)

Calliope said:


> I have never seen "mind you" spelt like that...but in pronunciation it's normal Strine. It's the way we normally talk




I have. I really don't get how people can type that and not think to themselves, wtf does that even mean.

A few others...

"for all intensive purposes"

"I could care less"

"It's a mute point"

"I should of done xyz"

I had a manager for whom English was not his first language and he used to say "it's a doggy dog world"

And at one of my first jobs when I was about 16 the hot girl who was every blonde stereotype you could imagine used to call it a "cup of chino". Not that I cared of course.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2015)

McLovin said:


> I had a manager for whom English was not his first language and he used to say "it's a doggy dog world"
> 
> And at one of my first jobs when I was about 16 the hot girl who was every blonde stereotype you could imagine used to call it a "cup of chino". Not that I cared of course.



Both so funny.
Perhaps even more common is mistaking words in song lyrics.  I can't think of an example right now, but some have been hilarious.

Another Australian expression that puzzled me when I first came to live here was, amongst a description of a conversation, "....and so she turned around and said....."   Why did she 'turn around', why didn't she just say whatever it was?

Also, the constant use, even by people who should know better, of "cannot be underestimated" when actually they mean "cannot be overestimated".  How on earth can this happen?  Don't they think about the sense before saying it?


----------



## Tisme (15 January 2015)

Julia said:


> Also, the constant use, even by people who should know better, of "cannot be underestimated" when actually they mean "cannot be overestimated".  How on earth can this happen?  Don't they think about the sense before saying it?




Because it starts off as a wag and becomes second nature, Bob Hope was a master at it.

There's so much that enriches our language; double negatives, bastardisation of words (e.g. obstropolous), slang, Cockney rhyming, etc, and it's one of the things we do just about as well as anyone else.

And yes I like the mondegreens with songs too


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> There's so much that enriches our language; double negatives, bastardisation of words (e.g. obstropolous), slang, Cockney rhyming,eventually replace  etc, and it's one of the things we do just about as well as anyone else.




I agree. I used to be an English purist once...not in pronunciation, but in spelling and grammar. I  was on the wtong track. I have no doubt that the idiomatic words, phrases and spelling now criticised by the purists wiill eventually blend in to our language. 

i also think that  Strine words in our spoken language like the commonly used"emmachisit" may someday replace the phrase "how much is it?' in the written language.



> Contrasted to America, the foundations of Australian English were in the prison system. Unlike puritans,  convicts did not want a simple language to persuade others to unite behind them. To the contrary, convicts wanted to disguise their language so that no one would know what they were talking about.
> 
> *As a legacy, the contemporary Australian dialect, or Strine, is littered with idioms, similes and invented words that make it one of the world's most advanced English dialects.* Although speakers of American English struggle to understand English speakers from outside of America, speakers of Strine can understand everyone, or confuse everyone if they so desire



http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/strine.htm


----------



## SirRumpole (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Because it starts off as a wag and becomes second nature, Bob Hope was a master at it.
> 
> There's so much that enriches our language; double negatives, bastardisation of words (e.g. obstropolous), slang, Cockney rhyming, etc, and it's one of the things we do just about as well as anyone else.
> 
> And yes I like the mondegreens with songs too




"I'm feeling crook " came from the rhyming slang "crook as a butcher's hook", although that probably meant a crim at the time. 

cheese and kisses - missus

trouble and strife - wife

billylids - kids

etc


----------



## Julia (15 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Because it starts off as a wag and becomes second nature, Bob Hope was a master at it.



But Bob Hope's whole reason for being was to be funny.  The people I'm talking about aren't in the slightest trying to be amusing.   The very intent of the phrase "cannot be over-estimated", which is what they actually mean, is an indication that they are very serious.

Next time I hear it, I'll try to remember to note context and post it.


----------



## Ves (15 January 2015)

Julia said:


> The very intent of the phrase "cannot be over-estimated", which is what they actually mean, is an indication that they are very serious.



Maybe I am having a brain fade....  but would it be more logical to say "it should not be underestimated..." instead?


----------



## Calliope (15 January 2015)

It is so important and worried me so much I had to get to the bottom of it. 

*To underestimate or overestimate: interchangeable, but only when it can’t be done?
by Louise*



> The American conductor Marin Alsop, addressing the audience after leading the Last Night of the Proms earlier this month, said: “The power of music can’t be underestimated. It’s what makes us human beings.” And no, this isn’t a post about underestimating the British capacity for patriotism, which reveals itself most notably but once a year at this stirring Britannic Union Jack-fest. It’s about the words she used.
> 
> Did Alsop really mean to say “can’t be overestimated” — as Frank Fahy suggested in his letter to The Guardian on Sep 8? “I am used to hearing sports commentators saying underestimate when they mean overestimate, but to hear Marin Alsop at the Last Night of the Proms opine that “You cannot underestimate the power of music” was disappointing.” Or was her choice of words perfectly in keeping with common usage and idiom? Certainly there was no doubt about the meaning of the message she intended to convey.
> 
> ...




http://www.glossophilia.org/?p=4441


----------



## Julia (15 January 2015)

Ves said:


> Maybe I am having a brain fade....  but would it be more logical to say "it should not be underestimated..." instead?



Yes, good point, Ves.  It would indeed.
But what I hear so often is someone saying "it cannot be underestimated" when they mean in fact that it's not possible to express too strongly how important something is.

So if someone is determined to use 'cannot' then what follows should be 'overestimated'.
eg "The importance of quickly dealing with this matter cannot be overestimated".

Your suggestion is an obvious improvement.


----------



## Tink (8 November 2015)

Just something I have noticed lately, and am just making a comment..

The last few links that I posted in this forum, all had spelling errors. 
I noticed that a while back on a few other articles also, but for someone in a professional field of writing, you would think that would not happen, in the printing process.

I am talking about articles in the paper, not on the forum, if people make a spelling mistake.

Spelling mistakes stand out like a sore thumb, on these articles.


----------



## Ferret (8 November 2015)

I've also noticed an increase in spelling and grammar errors in newspaper articles over the last year or so.  

I think it's a sign of cost cutting.  Perhaps proof reading is no longer carried out?


----------



## pixel (8 November 2015)

Ferret said:


> I've also noticed an increase in spelling and grammar errors in newspaper articles over the last year or so.
> 
> I think it's a sign of cost cutting.  Perhaps proof reading is no longer carried out?




Proof reading went out of practice more than 25 years ago. 
However, newspaper cadets were still tested for literacy, meaning they did manage to write fairly well even off the cuff. Nowadays, journalists are increasingly straddling the media, appearing in print as well as vision; therefore, cadets are increasingly selected by looks and visual appeal. Ever wondered why there are so many new faces on TV? Faces and figures that initially appeared in Beauty Contests?
Sure, beauty doesn't necessarily imply fluffy. But looks and smarts aren't exactly congenital twins either. Even our schools have changed outcome targets over the years, with curricula giving appearance greater importance than basic numeracy and literacy.
I remember a reference handed to me by a young lass who applied for a job in my typing pool. It was written by her teacher and stressed: *"She takes pride in her appearance and is always well groomed. That will make her an asset in any office environment."*


----------



## wayneL (8 November 2015)

It's all a cycle, just like mineral prices.

We have cycled from completely arbitrary spelling and grammar in the 16th century, to standardized English, it's zenith mid 20th century, back to the intentionally ignorant and appalling arbitrary spelling and grammar of today.


----------



## pixel (8 November 2015)

The Spell Chequer

I’ve god a Spelling Chequer who lives on my pea sea.
Aviary thyme I rite a word he cheques it write four me.
My personnel-cum-pewter is a reel good friend.
There four I named him Patrick, the Sane off Ireland.

I no I can relay on Pet two spill chick roe bye roue,
End this here verse is spilled oh gay: the Chequer tole me sew.
I never make miss takes no moor sense Patrick shags each word.
Butt grammar eye must chews what Fitz-Patrick's a peace of turd.


----------



## Tisme (9 November 2015)

wayneL said:


> It's all a cycle, just like mineral prices.
> 
> We have cycled from completely arbitrary spelling and grammar in the 16th century, to standardized English, it's zenith mid 20th century, back to the intentionally ignorant and appalling arbitrary spelling and grammar of today.




Even the use of american zeds instead of esses.


----------



## pixel (9 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> Even the use of american zeds instead of esses.




LOL - they're American *Zees *

... and seeing the Yanks are dropping the U in words like "precarious", should we apply their logic and refer to the USA simply as SA?


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2015)

Tisme said:


> Even the use of american zeds instead of esses.




LOL. I can only offer the excuse of having gone to school there  and the damn spellchecker keeps reinforcing my confusion.


----------



## Tisme (9 November 2015)

wayneL said:


> LOL. I can only offer the excuse of having gone to school there  and the damn spellchecker keeps reinforcing my confusion.




You're a good sport


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 November 2017)

The following is a common example of the see-do mind regarding *that the*. People use the two words unnecessarily in sentences and seeing it so often makes it seem correct. It is annoying to read. Remove *that the *from the following sentence for correct grammar.

ASX 200 is rebalanced quarterly and sometimes its components drop to fewer than 200 companies. The rebalancing of the index is done to ensure *that the* components maintain eligibility requirement.


----------



## OmegaTrader (2 December 2017)

*A rose by any other name *would smell as sweet


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 January 2018)

Another example of the unecessary use of 'that'. Much over used in many word exchanges.



> That would imply that the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species.



or
That would imply the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 January 2018)

Wysiwyg said:


> Another example of the unecessary use of 'that'.
> 
> 
> or
> That would imply the "laws" of evolution differ from species to species




Forgive me grammar policeman it appears that I have sinned.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Forgive me grammar policeman it appears that I have sinned.



Nothing personal, simple example regarding the commonness on the internet even in professionally constructed articles.


----------

