english grammar and spelling

[DaleCooper]

I tend to see it as an indication that the bloke has too much time on his hands.)

It sounds like the one thing his school didn't teach him was to think for himself.

 

[Calthrop]

Can we agree that the following things are not errors?

- split infinitives

Split infinitives - I find that a sentence usually flows better and sounds more natural with a split infinitive.

In my understanding, the "split infinitive rule" is a bit of nonsense originated a couple of hundred years ago by grammarian / pedant scholars of the day, who opined that English should conform to the rules of Latin grammar -- which as somebody says, "makes about as much sense as trying to play football by the rules of baseball". In Latin, it's impossible to split an infinitive, because the infinitive form of Latin verbs is of one word only ("amare", to love); so because you can't split an infinitive in Latin, the pedants pontificated that you mustn't split one in English. Barmy people !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It sounds like the one thing his school didn't teach him was to think for himself.

He can think fine, on most subjects; just, re this particular topic of the English language, he's weird.

 

[Barn]

Indeed. The even more ironic thing is that Latin is a language that is very flexible about word order (because so much meaning comes from word endings rather than word positioning).

 

[edwin_m]

Updating with the iPhone it autocorrects to English.

This seems to make sense to me as an independent clause, although it would be clearer with a comma after "iPhone".

Perhaps you're right after all.

 

[WestCoast]

Indeed. The even more ironic thing is that Latin is a language that is very flexible about word order (because so much meaning comes from word endings rather than word positioning).

Neville Gwynne, author of Gwynne's Grammar, argues that split infinitives are incorrect in English as Germanic languages do not use them. An assertion which is absolutely untrue, as German regularly uses split infinitives in general writing e.g. er versprach, zurückzukommen would literally mean he promised, back to come in English. To come back is one infintive in German; zurückkommen. However, the split is used for a different purpose and would not be recognised as such.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Just remember that it's ignoramuses not ignorami - it's of Greek origin, not Latin.

 

[DaleCooper]

Just remember that it's ignoramuses not ignorami - it's of Greek origin, not Latin.

I presume we should write "fora" rather than "forums"?

 

[Domh245]

Just remember that it's ignoramuses not ignorami - it's of Greek origin, not Latin.

Reminds me of one of my favourite Mitchell & Webb sketches

 

[anme]

I presume we should write "fora" rather than "forums"?

Both are correct, but "forums" is much more common. One can argue that "fora" is closer to the original Latin, but we're not speaking Latin so that seems irrelevant.

 

[Busaholic]

Good to see that there is more that one "lord of the manor" who participates upon this website....

If only you knew the truth...

 

[Dennis]

I often split my infinitives, it's much cheaper.

 

[87 027]

To what on earth is the world coming? (With apologies to Bill Bryson)

 

[MotCO]

I often split my infinitives, it's much cheaper.

Provided you split them at a station you stop at!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure if the question was intended to be rhetorical, but on the assumption that you were asking that as a genuine question, I would say that it matters for several reasons:

Firstly, because, as others here have observed, not following correct grammar and spelling can introduce ambiguities in the meaning. Even when it doesn't introduce ambiguities, incorrect spelling and grammar will look unfamiliar to most people - and that will cause people to have to do a bit more mental processing when reading - so that's likely to harm communication.

Secondly, I'd say it matters because incorrect spelling and grammar is irritating and unpleasant to read for many people. To that extent, not making the effort to use correct English is likely to be inconsiderate to your intended audience (This reason is obviously most relevant if you are writing something for public consumption; it may not matter if for example you're writing a text, intended to be read by just one close friend). There is however a balance here - there is a point where being too pedantic about minor points of grammar can itself cause irritation.

Thirdly, it matters because correct spelling and grammar represents our way of keeping the language consistent, and therefore mutually intelligible to everyone. Consider for example, that we can usually read books and articles that were written 100 years ago without any real difficulty. That's because, although English has changed a little over the last 100 years, that change is relatively small - not enough to seriously hinder understanding. I would suggest that it's largely the fact that we as a society insist on following established rules - including spelling and grammar - that keeps that rate of change of evolution of the language down to a reasonable level. If no one cared about following spelling and grammar rules, then the result would be almost certainly be that how we speak and write would change much more quickly - with the result that things written or recorded 100 years ago or even more recently may well become unintelligible to many people. I think it's obvious that the economic consequences of that would not be good!

There may be a further reason, which could actually ensure that English does not change in the future - the grammar checks on many computer systems will ensure that English will remain largely unchanged.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

There is another thread about this topic on page four in this section.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It sounds like the one thing his school didn't teach him was to think for himself.

On reading your posting, I was reminded of two verses from the Gilbert and Sullivan song "When I was a lad".....
"I always voted at my party's call
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all"

 

[Calthrop]

[Previous post, quote]:

I always voted at my party's call
And never thought of thinking for myself at all
[end quote] --

I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the ruler of the Queen's Navee.

 

[MotCO]

Two that I always find extremely annoying are the use of "loose" when what is meant is "lose" and "of" instead of "have".

The "of" instead of "have" is the one which annoys me most. "Should of" is as meaningless as "should at" or "should to".

Another one is "try and do something" rather than "try to do something". Whilst the latter is more correct grammatically, the former is probably not incorrect.

 

[DaleCooper]

Another one is "try and do something" rather than "try to do something". Whilst the latter is more correct grammatically, the former is probably not incorrect.

Being an uncouth sort of bloke I would probably say "try and do something" but I would write "try to do something".

 

[Calthrop]

Another one is "try and do something" rather than "try to do something". Whilst the latter is more correct grammatically, the former is probably not incorrect.

Being an uncouth sort of bloke I would probably say "try and do something" but I would write "try to do something".

Me likewise -- for me, "try to" sounds, in ordinary conversational speech, a bit stilted / pedantic / "precious"; but I feel it to be the norm in writing. My friend whom I mentioned earlier, gets apoplectic about "try and" even per the spoken word; but (being carefully grammatical here) getting apoplectic is something of which he does a great deal.

 

[DaleCooper]

I've just spotted a post on another part of this forum which is a perfect illustration of the confusion that spelling and grammatical mistakes can cause. I have altered the wording but the essence is unchanged.

a man who's 13yr old

At first I thought it odd to call a 13 year old a man then I realised it should be:

a man whose 13yr old

An easy mistake but it completely changes the meaning.

(it's good job I previewed this as I found I'd written "speeling and garmmatical", it just goes to show...)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The "of" instead of "have" is the one which annoys me most. "Should of" is as meaningless as "should at" or "should to".

Your mention of the word "of" in your posting had me wondering if the basics of the language of Bulgaria had been introduced into the British secondary school system, with the "ov" Slavonic name suffix noted in patronymics of male family ancestors, being subjected to a different use in English by schoolchildren. I have seen much graffiti of the type example of "Karen ov Ardwick"... :roll:

The other suffix often heard in various areas is that which concerns the suffix "een" which appears in historical records in words such as Halloween, where the word "een" signified a particular part of a day. Many times, especially used by teenage girls it is used as meaning a time period of ten years. Coupled with another unusual word usage of "am" which signifies the phrase "I am", many a bus driver on challenging a female youth about the payment of the adult bus fare is met with the stock phrase excuse..."Am four een"... which I am led to believe signifies an age of fourteen years of age (four years and ten years).

 

[Calthrop]

The other suffix often heard in various areas is that which concerns the suffix "een" which appears in historical records in words such as Halloween, where the word "een" signified a particular part of a day. Many times, especially used by teenage girls it is used as meaning a time period of ten years. Coupled with another unusual word usage of "am" which signifies the phrase "I am", many a bus driver on challenging a female youth about the payment of the adult bus fare is met with the stock phrase excuse..."Am four een"... which I am led to believe signifies an age of fourteen years of age (four years and ten years).

Or perhaps, a very precocious four-year-old saying to the driver, using the old-time contraction of "even" -- "e'en": "Am four, e'en": thus excusing self from paying any fare? (I'd use here, if I understood their working on this board, a "smiley" -- suspect, though, Mr. S,. that you disapprove of them on principle anyway.)

 

[DaleCooper]

(I'd use here, if I understood their working on this board, a "smiley" -- suspect, though, Mr. S,. that you disapprove of them on principle anyway.)

I disapprove of them on the basis that you should be able to communicate your meaning with words alone.

Another common error is the use of "ect" as an abbreviation for et cetera, it just makes me think of electroconvulsive therapy.

While I'm at it I'll just mention:

Beginning a sentence with "So", sometimes it's appropriate but it seems to be the default setting for some people.
Attempting to justify an opinion by ending with "end of" or "Fact!"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another common error is the use of "ect" as an abbreviation for et cetera, it just makes me think of electroconvulsive therapy.

Indeed so and even more so when that abbreviation is normally correctly stated at "etc" and not "ect" as your posting states when referring to et cetera, which when translated in a simplistic manner from Latin into English is usually taken to mean " and other things".

 

[Calthrop]

- starting a sentence with 'and' or 'but'

Beginning a sentence with "So", sometimes it's appropriate but it seems to be the default setting for some people.

On the "you can't win" basis -- I'll likely get lambasted here, for "aren't-they-cute" condescension toward those on England's "Celtic fringe"; but I'll take my chances.

I like the way in which some of us use "but", or "so", as a meaningless end-of-sentence or statement placeholder.

In Ireland: "I was walkin' along the road, so..."

Around Glasgow: "I juist missed the bluidy train tae Balloch, but..."

 

[DaleCooper]

England's "Celtic fringe"

The Celtic fringe is probably more appropriate; England's "Celtic fringe" would be Cornwall.

 

[Calthrop]

The Celtic fringe is probably more appropriate; England's "Celtic fringe" would be Cornwall.

I don't quite follow, here; but wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes...

 

[backontrack]

I don't quite follow, here; but wouldn't want to tread on anyone's toes...

Well, I wouldn't consider Scotland to be part of England. Cornwall is.

 

[Calthrop]

Well, I wouldn't consider Scotland to be part of England. Cornwall is.

I thought the "fringe" expression to be a fairly common one -- meant to be geographically descriptive, not derogatory in any way -- indicating that in this group of islands, there is England; and the assorted other, Celtic, countries, at various points around England.

 

[TheNewNo2]

I presume we should write "fora" rather than "forums"?

I was part of the Bye-Laws Review Group at university - there was a big argument over whether it should be "referenda" or "referendums". I think in the end it was decided the two meant something different, something along the lines of you have several referenda at each of your referendums.

There may be a further reason, which could actually ensure that English does not change in the future - the grammar checks on many computer systems will ensure that English will remain largely unchanged.

Not really, it's still changing despite spellcheck. The grammar checks are usually pretty rubbish to begin with, and people easily add extra words - for instance I tend to use thankyou as a single word.