Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ASF spelling and grammar lessons

Jump to new
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
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.
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".
Click to expand...

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).
 
rederob said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Quincy said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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".


Maybe Noirua was just playing with apostrophes?
Btw, formerly (meaning previously)
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Hi bunyip, An excellent post, thanks - noi
PS. Should it not be "An old school friend..." and "...Rs." Also "organizing" and "sympathize".
 
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.
 
With a pen and a piece of paper you don't right. :eek:

You can, however, write.
 
noirua said:
Hi bunyip, An excellent post, thanks - noi
PS. Should it not be "An old school friend..." and "...Rs." Also "organizing" and "sympathize".
Click to expand...

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 'sympathise' and 'organising' 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.
 
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'.
Interestingly, the letter 'y' is also considered a vowel, although this was never mentioned in my English classes.

I believe that the words 'sympathise' and 'organising' 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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".

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
Top