ASF spelling and grammar lessons

[Snagglepuss]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Rob or I could go.
He can send it to either Rob or me.

Cheers,
GP

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

Rob or I could go.
He can send it to either Rob or me.

Cheers,
GP

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]

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

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]

the new car's fuel consumption is now 20 miles per gallon, and I'd like that to come down confused

 

[GreatPig]

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]

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

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]

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

LOL. Great imagery thinking of the frigate disintegrating.

 

[Snagglepuss]

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]

No comments yet on "the reason why"?
- Snaggle.

Who knows the reason why?

 

[wayneL]

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.