Guarding Grammar

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh look, another thread about the use of English and correct grammer and how it annoys people, just in a different section of the forum, yay!

Do I win the prize for being the first person to spot the deliberately made mistake in that posting above?

 

[Clip]

Do I win the prize for being the first person to spot the deliberately made mistake in that posting above?

No however, as I know you like trying to use language from a bygone age, you will obviously know that way back when it was also acceptable to spell it as I did and also as gramer, gramaire, and grameer.


so for those of you who think you know what you are on about and dont like how language has changed in this day and age I am so so sorry to burst your perfect bubble.

 

[FQ]

Honestly? The 'into' one really annoys me. The 'this train will terminate here' one doesn't though.

 

[Loop Line]

Honestly? The 'into' one really annoys me. The 'this train will terminate here' one doesn't though.

Perhaps a new train is quickly constructed for the return journey. Like that episode of Rocko's Modern Life set in a bowling alley. The used skittles are swept away and ground down to dust while a truck brings up a load of logs. These are then turned into thousands of new skittles, which are then placed in the lanes for the next bowler.

 

[Clip]

Perhaps a new train is quickly constructed for the return journey. Like that episode of Rocko's Modern Life set in a bowling alley. The used skittles are swept away and ground down to dust while a truck brings up a load of logs. These are then turned into thousands of new skittles, which are then placed in the lanes for the next bowler.

I believe The Simpsons done that first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkHmVGjpvc

 

[Phil.]

I believe The Simpsons done that first
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pkHmVGjpvc

Y'see, there we are again.
The Simpsons did that first.

 

[Clip]

Oh do pipe down, its tiresome.

 

[Loop Line]

Ah yes, that's where I've seen it. Though I'm sure they did that in Rocko's Modern Life as well. Hmm. I'll have to find the episode and see.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I often try to imagine what a "Wigan Terminator" would look like? Perhaps a deadly weapon in one hand, a pie in the other, whilst sucking on an "Uncle Joe's Mint Ball (keeps you all aglow)"....

 

[Bevan Price]

Going back to the OP, why is 'arriving at' correct, and 'arriving into' not? Who says?
If I'm a passenger in a car, and someone that I'm meeting in Nottingham calls to ask where I am, I'd say 'We're just coming (or arriving) into Nottingham', not 'We're just arriving at Nottingham'.
I'd also say 'I'm in the car', but conversely 'I'm on the bus' or 'I'm on the train'.
What is the grammar rule that is being broken here?

Personally I would prefer "arriving IN Nottingham", but "arriving AT" or "arriving INTO" are acceptable.

However a version I sometimes hear, "arriving TO Nottingham" is nonsense.

 

[Groningen]

In the Netherlands they often say: we approach (a certain town). Whether we arrive there is something else.

 

[muddythefish]

No one's mentioned the dreaded "train" station. They were always railway stations when I were a lad.

 

[Darandio]

No one's mentioned the dreaded "train" station. They were always railway stations when I were a lad.

They still are and trains call there. It's really not worth getting as worked up as some people do about it.

 

[Welshman]

I often try to imagine what a "Wigan Terminator" would look like? Perhaps a deadly weapon in one hand, a pie in the other, whilst sucking on an "Uncle Joe's Mint Ball (keeps you all aglow)"....

At least Sir John Betjeman [and I] appreciated that.

Perhaps your "Wigan Terminator" would also be peerless [or pier-less!].

Seeing as this thread has lasted as long as it has, perhaps I may be allowed to cite what brings out the hidden pedant in me:-


".....Trains would like to apologise for any delay to your journey"......

Well, go on then, You know you'd like to.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Personally I would prefer "arriving IN Nottingham", but "arriving AT" or "arriving INTO" are acceptable.

However a version I sometimes hear, "arriving TO Nottingham" is nonsense.

My understanding of the correct usage of 'arrive at' and 'arrive in' is confirmed by
Cambridge Dictionaries Online

Arrive
from English Grammar Today

We use the verb arrive with at or in to talk about ‘coming to’, ‘getting to’ or ‘reaching’ a place where a journey ends. If we see the destination as a point, we say arrive at. If we see it as a larger area, we say arrive in:

We arrived at the art gallery just as it was closing. (The gallery is seen as a point.)

Immigrants who arrived in the country after 2005 have to take a special language test. (The country is seen as a larger area.)

Warning:

We don’t say arrive to a place:

I always arrive at college about half an hour before my classes start.

Not: I always arrive to college …

If a station name is mentioned, then 'at' should be used. If a city, then 'in' is preferrable. Sorted.

It would be better if that correct usage was observed, however it is not a huge irritation to me. I cannot, however, go along with the principle that as long as the meaning is clear, incorrect usage is perfectly acceptable.

However it is to be tolerated in many situations.

Our forum rules state "All contributions should be readable and understandable. You should avoid the use of excessive formatting, and make reasonable efforts to use legible fonts and correct spelling, punctuation and grammar in all your contributions.

I take from that a support here for high standards in communication generally. I trust I am not mistaken in that inference.

 

[Mag_seven]

The one that gets me is "this train is scheduled to arrive at XXX at approximately 18.00" - there is no approximately about it - it is scheduled to arrive at 18.00, end of.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No however, as I know you like trying to use language from a bygone age, you will obviously know that way back when it was also acceptable to spell it as I did and also as gramer, gramaire, and grameer.

As you quite rightly say, I am in the same age group as Yoda and we both share the same love of the use of arcane language.

But you are naught but a young gossoon (admittedly gifted with a vast knowledge of computer problem solving expertise), so unfortunately, you are not allowed to use arcane terminology...

 

[Bayum]

The one that gets me is "this train is scheduled to arrive at XXX at approximately 18.00" - there is no approximately about it - it is scheduled to arrive at 18.00, end of.

18:00 on the dot with 0 seconds?

Good luck with that. I think that's too specific for even a pedant.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Honestly, I am surprised people still get worked up about minor foibles of language. I'm even more surprised nobody has tried to set up an equivalent of the Académie française here.

One, remembering far more younger days, would in certain circumstances, look to the word "regress" rather than "evolve"..:roll:

Yes, and I am sure your generation's predecessors would say much the same thing of your generation's evolution of language.

 

[RPM]

The one that gets me is "this train is scheduled to arrive at XXX at approximately 18.00" - there is no approximately about it - it is scheduled to arrive at 18.00, end of.

Yes that one irritates me a bit, but not as much as when guards announce the working timetable arrival time at a destination, instead of the advertised time.

I do dislike some of the mangled language that people seem to use when making announcements. Better to talk naturally and avoid stock phrases, but I blame a lot of it on poor training. The announcement training I received was risible.

 

[Clip]

Our forum rules state "All contributions should be readable and understandable. You should avoid the use of excessive formatting, and make reasonable efforts to use legible fonts and correct spelling, punctuation and grammar in all your contributions.

I take from that a support here for high standards in communication generally. I trust I am not mistaken in that inference.

Ive bolded a bit extra of that sentence that you left out, probably on purpose but who is to say?

As you quite rightly say, I am in the same age group as Yoda and we both share the same love of the use of arcane language.

But you are naught but a young gossoon (admittedly gifted with a vast knowledge of computer problem solving expertise), so unfortunately, you are not allowed to use arcane terminology...

And as such you and others are not allowed to pull up others who may use more modern phrases, as long as the post is understood then that should be enough - its a forum and not official documents.


Also that means you also cant use shooters incubus, newton heaths finest or any other such drivel when referring to somewhere/thing/person that has a proper name

 

[Calthrop]

Here, I’m in the “wet, permissive, let-the-barbarians-in” camp. If the bod is doing their job correctly and efficiently – so what, if their language use falls short of upper-crust /anti-corporate-speak perfection?

There comes to my mind, the “funny” from Victorian days, about the railway employee expounding to potential travellers-with-their-pet: “Cats is dogs, and birds is dogs, but this here tortoise is a Hinseck, and you don’t need a ticket for him”. The chap knew his company’s rules about “companion animals”, and courteously – even if not perfect-grammatically -- explained them: kudos to him.

 

[crehld]

As far as I'm concerned (and I stress this is a personal opinion) the only standards one needs to worry about are clarity and conciseness. Many of my students try to be clever with overly cumbersome expression hoping it will improve their mark, but all it does is mask a lack of understanding of the concepts they are conveying. I see no point in communicating something in ten words when five (or fewer) will suffice. Articulating yourself clearly and concisely is a difficult skill which is why I think we should be forgiving in everyday life. But it is why we set tight word counts and strictly enforce them.

 

[Gutfright]

Does the train 'terminating' at Southport mean it will be destroyed and a new set introduced for the return service?

Surely the definition of 'terminating' is "travelling back in time and failing to kill your target despite massive technological superiority"?

Or have I been watching too many movies?

 

[Busaholic]

Has anyone noted the replacement of the workmanlike word 'before' by 'ahead of'? Is there an icon for putting the cat amongst the pigeons? If not, there should be.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also that means you also can't use "Shooter's Incubus, Newton Heath's Finest or any other such drivel when referring to somewhere/thing/person that has a proper name

Oh yes and I can and I will.

I full well know the proper names for those and as such, garnered with such knowledge, I am able to give sarcastic colloquialisms to them....

 

[tsr]

18:00 on the dot with 0 seconds?

Good luck with that. I think that's too specific for even a pedant.

I've done it, to within a second or two, and then kicked myself (metaphorically, for the pedants) that I've then managed to arrive at my "approximate" estimate...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, and I am sure your generation's predecessors would say much the same thing of your generation's evolution of language.

I do not doubt what you say for a moment, but in my very own case, I am the once-shining star of St Bede's College, Manchester, who even as an eleven year old in the Upper Third, prior to admission to the "Classics stream" always was known for using the English language in its correct usage, thanks to a dedicated mother who has Irish heritage who was a headteacher with a very good degree in English. Father was of a similar belief, like myself and my two younger brothers, in having a very good degree in Mathematics, another subject where discipline of thought is essential.

Perhaps the discipline required of the Latin and Greek studies from the Lower Fourth through to the Upper Sixth classes, has reinforced my use of correct tense usage in English. It is not that I am a recent convert to correct use of the language, but have maintained my standards for as long as I care to remember.

 

[Loop Line]

Etihad calls its passengers 'Guests' now. Farce.

 

[Busaholic]

May I suggest to anyone with more than a passing interest in the subject George Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language' published in 1946 and still available as a Penguin Modern Classic? Clarity and simplicity are his watchwords and his thoughts are as relevant today as when he wrote them.