ASF spelling and grammar lessons

[2020hindsight]

.. 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]

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]

well I wish they'd stop saying "Mr Rudd overseas everything that's going on in Canberra"

 

[Michael9]

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]

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.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
4.
a. A law or decree.
b. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
6. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law.
tr.v. sanc·tioned, sanc·tion·ing, sanc·tions
1. To give official authorization or approval to: "The president, we are told, has sanctioned greed at the cost of compassion" David Rankin.
2. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. See Synonyms at approve.
3. To penalize, especially for violating a moral principle or international law.

Doesn't answer the question, though, of why there are two almost opposing definitions.

 

[Spanning Tree]

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]

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]

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.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
4.
a. A law or decree.
b. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
6. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law.
tr.v. sanc·tioned, sanc·tion·ing, sanc·tions
1. To give official authorization or approval to: "The president, we are told, has sanctioned greed at the cost of compassion" David Rankin.
2. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. See Synonyms at approve.
3. To penalize, especially for violating a moral principle or international law.

 

[2020hindsight]

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]

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' meanings, 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]

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]

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' meanings, 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.

Thanks Doris!

These kind of things, which should be: ................

Cheers...

 

[Calliope]

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]

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]

Thus, the correct grammar would be:

- about the words' meanings, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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 )

But I would never start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction, because it is very poor english...

And never would I doogie