Do grammatical errors bother you? - Page 6

Sine Nomine · 10-23-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

That's why I usually write 'shoulda, coulda, and woulda!'

Stitchawl

That's kinda one waya getting out of it

dmacmart · 10-23-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Actually, both all right and alright date back to the 14c. In Spring of '65, I was a sophomore in high school.

I'm pretty sure my grade 5 teacher was educated after the 14c. So she was just a little out of date ... Still bugs me though.

Bilbo1967 · 10-23-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeoffC

as an example

"...he gifted the player the goal."

Of course, if you're talking about football, all normal rules of grammar are suspended anyway.

As in, and this is often heard, "The boy done good" or, "The team done great". Both absolute nonsense in normal English of course, but perfectly acceptable as examples of the football discussion tense form

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-23-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Of course, if you're talking about football, all normal rules of grammar are suspended anyway.

As in, and this is often heard, "The boy done good" or, "The team done great". Both absolute nonsense in normal English of course, but perfectly acceptable as examples of the football discussion tense form

Ohmigosh! Please do not get me started on the way athletes and coaches speak (or, rather, butcher) English.

One I've been hearing in commercials lately, including one on getting an education, is dropping the word "are" such as, "They out to help you" and, "They compassionate." It drives me nuttier than I already (or is that all ready?) am.

Worldwalker · 10-23-2010, 11:53 AM

Meter/metre is one of those differences between British and American usage, like center/centre, honor/honour, etc. There are other differences, from the placement of periods to the pluralization of collective nouns (the company is/are) which are specific to one dialect or the other. They're generally fairly consistent in their native dialect (though the plural bit has been creeping into American English for some reason) and I just accept them as one of the peculiarities of their native tongue, so long as someone manages to keep them consistent. In a sense, my head shifts gears to whichever version I'm reading, and the other one looks funny even if it's the one I'm used to seeing.

Verbing nouns has happened as long as there has been an English. Look at basic words like walk, swim, drink, etc. Are they nouns or verbs? Yes. I'm not certain, but I believe Germanic languages in general are inclined to do that. Romance languages, on the other hand, are much less so. Words stick properly to their part of speech, and have endings to prove it. Perfectly innocent words are turned into modifiers when needed. English also throws away articles in a way only Slavic speakers can appreciate. In Boston subway cars, there is a sign which says, in English, "passenger emergency intercom in rear of train"; in Spanish, it says "system of intercommunication for passengers in case of emergency is situated in the rear of the train." They both mean the same thing, but English implies the "is situated", leaves out "the" several times, adjectivates "for passengers" and "in case of emergency", and uses a neologism for "system of intercommunication." This is all very well and good for an experienced English speaker, but newbies (and computers) get headaches trying to sort that out. That's just something English does (along with mugging other languages in dark allies and rifling their pockets for spare vocabulary).

The last time someone tried to inflict another language's rules on English, we got the "rules" regarding split infinitives, the word "and", and sentence-ending prepositions, courtesy of Latin-infatuated pedants. They tried to stick the rules for Latin onto English because Latin was the "ideal" language and ignored usage going back to the foundations of English. Yes, you really can write "to boldly go", begin a sentence with "and" (but if you do that too much, you'll look like the King James Bible), and put a preposition on the end of a sentence. English always has. Latin can't or shouldn't. But that's Latin, and applying Latin rules to English makes no more sense than applying English rules to Latin, despite the best efforts of 18th-century pedants.

While there are a few whose origins are lost in history ("kick the bucket", for instance) most idioms have a clear and obvious meaning if used correctly. Pouring (what?) over papers is ridiculous, but poring makes perfect sense when you know that "to pore" is "to study". Except, of course, that people taught to pronounce words and then understand the meaning of the sound, rather than to understand the word itself, and who have never seen "pore" in that usage, just use the word "pour" instead (it sounds the same, after all, and they've been taught that's all that matters) and just say "it's an idiom" when asked what it actually means.

If you think of "its"/"it's" as "the letters that make the sound 'itz'" then you'll never know which one to use. But if you realize that "it's" is short for "it is" and substitute as needed to check, and know that "its" is just like "his", you'll always know which one to use. Except, of course, that idiots have taken to writing "her's", "our's", etc., and I expect to see "hi's" any moment. Not only has using apostrophes to make plurals become common, but now they're being used to precede T (yes, "wen't") and before S in words that simply end in S. But, y'know, "English is a living language", right? So "hi's" should be an acceptable alternative to "his" and "wan't" should be a perfectly valid way to write "want", shouldn't it? (I'm inclined to blame fantasy authors who think their characters' stupid names are less stupid if they throw in random apostrophes, but that's just me).

I strongly recommend this website for checking words.

This is why people should know their language. Picking a word that sounds kind of like the one they mean is proof that they don't. Words are a writer's tools. I would no more want to read a book by a writer who didn't know how to use his or her tools than I would want to have my car repaired by a mechanic equally unfamiliar with the tools of the trade.

Worldwalker · 10-23-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you also object to "also", "although", "altogether", "almost", etc? Why pick on "alright"?

Most of the words that begin with "al-" are singular words, not compounds. There is no "all so" or "all most". The only one you listed which would be a parallel to "alright" would be "altogether", and that means something quite different from "all together". If you say "we got in the boat altogether" you mean that you didn't leave anything behind, whereas if you say "we got in the boat all together" you and other people got into the boat simultaneously. There is a need for two words, and they're not interchangeable. "Alright", on the other hand, is merely a misspelling of "all right", written by people who learned their language from TV and don't actually know how to spell; they're just trying to write down the sounds they hear. It's not a word; only the ignorant think it is.

Bilbo1967 · 10-23-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Most of the words that begin with "al-" are singular words, not compounds. There is no "all so" or "all most". The only one you listed which would be a parallel to "alright" would be "altogether", and that means something quite different from "all together". If you say "we got in the boat altogether" you mean that you didn't leave anything behind, whereas if you say "we got in the boat all together" you and other people got into the boat simultaneously. There is a need for two words, and they're not interchangeable. "Alright", on the other hand, is merely a misspelling of "all right", written by people who learned their language from TV and don't actually know how to spell; they're just trying to write down the sounds they hear. It's not a word; only the ignorant think it is.

Whilst I agree with the first parts of your post, I cannot agree with the highlighted section. 'alright' is a word and has been for many years.

No need to take my word for it though, check any reputable dictionary (it's certainly in my physical copy of the Oxford English, although I note that the online Chambers admits 'alright' as an alternative to 'all right' but suggests that 'all right' is the more correct form).

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-23-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

..."Alright", on the other hand, is merely a misspelling of "all right", written by people who learned their language from TV and don't actually know how to spell; they're just trying to write down the sounds they hear. It's not a word; only the ignorant think it is.

After two brilliant discourses you come up with this rubbish? Did you not read my earlier post on all right vs. alright? They didn't have TV back in the 14th century. And what you said about all together vs. altogether could also apply to all right vs. alright (granted, it would be a bit of a stretch).

Seanette · 10-23-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SneakySnake

I was reading a novel by a well known author recently.

And twice he used the term "hone in on". I know we all make mistakes, and sometimes there are errors in certain translations, but...

a well known author making the same mistake twice in the same novel. It annoyed me, but not enough to spoil the book.

maybe I am getting too picky in my old age.

Even brought and bought are now acceptable as being interchangeable.

Does anyone else suffer from the problem of noticing and being annoyed by such errors/ignorance?

That kind of thing drives me bananas. What are editors and writers getting PAID for, if they're producing such sloppy work?

Pretty avatar, BTW.

Seanette · 10-23-2010, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Poor grammar annoys me a lot - especially the simple stuff (such as mixing up "its" and "it's"). I just feel like saying to the author "if you can't be bothered to get it right, why should I bother to read your book?"

AMEN!!!! There are a LOT of writers out there chasing a limited amount of reader discretionary income. Quality is important to successful competition.

Lady Fitzgerald · 10-23-2010, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seanette

AMEN!!!! There are a LOT of writers out there chasing a limited amount of reader discretionary income. Quality is important to successful competition.

Unless the target market wouldn't know quality if it came up and slapped them.

Seanette · 10-23-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sine Nomine

My pet hate is would of/should of/could of instead of would have etc. Of is NOT a verb.

You are so right.

I think I've found a new online home around this board.

Cpl Punishment · 10-23-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.J. Sellers

I'm an editor as well as a novelist, so I notice almost everything. Yet our language is fluid and changing, and I try to be mentally flexible. Still, some things bug me, such as the use of alright rather than all right. I love discussions like this because they increase my awareness of language uses.
L.J.

Makes me wish I had paid more attention in English class...But I write gooder than I speak....

Seanette · 10-23-2010, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Unless the target market wouldn't know quality if it came up and slapped them.

(sniffle) Sadly true. Good point.

Fbone · 10-23-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjones6416

No, he probably meant "regifted," as in, "I didn't need that vase my sister gave me for my birthday, so I regifted it to my babysitter for Christmas." That term is pretty common here in the U.S. now, although I hate it.

Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks.

I first heard it on a Seinfeld episode back in the mid 1990s. The label maker episode. Now it's in the latest MW dictionary.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Oh bother. They didn't fix the ePub/PDF library book issue	NNolan	Sony Reader	31	11-05-2010 10:27 PM
New eBook: A 'Why-Bother?' housekeeping manual	DanRaine	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	7	10-24-2010 12:58 PM
Why does the page refresh on eink devices bother people so much?	brecklundin	News	46	09-16-2009 01:23 PM
Errors and Errors...	uncultured	Amazon Kindle	7	03-11-2009 05:11 PM
Should I bother with the firmware update? (UK)	yegon	Sony Reader	14	08-15-2008 05:02 PM

10-23-2010, 11:53 AM	#80
Worldwalker Curmudgeon Posts: 3,085 Karma: 722357 Join Date: Feb 2010 Device: PRS-505	Meter/metre is one of those differences between British and American usage, like center/centre, honor/honour, etc. There are other differences, from the placement of periods to the pluralization of collective nouns (the company is/are) which are specific to one dialect or the other. They're generally fairly consistent in their native dialect (though the plural bit has been creeping into American English for some reason) and I just accept them as one of the peculiarities of their native tongue, so long as someone manages to keep them consistent. In a sense, my head shifts gears to whichever version I'm reading, and the other one looks funny even if it's the one I'm used to seeing. Verbing nouns has happened as long as there has been an English. Look at basic words like walk, swim, drink, etc. Are they nouns or verbs? Yes. I'm not certain, but I believe Germanic languages in general are inclined to do that. Romance languages, on the other hand, are much less so. Words stick properly to their part of speech, and have endings to prove it. Perfectly innocent words are turned into modifiers when needed. English also throws away articles in a way only Slavic speakers can appreciate. In Boston subway cars, there is a sign which says, in English, "passenger emergency intercom in rear of train"; in Spanish, it says "system of intercommunication for passengers in case of emergency is situated in the rear of the train." They both mean the same thing, but English implies the "is situated", leaves out "the" several times, adjectivates "for passengers" and "in case of emergency", and uses a neologism for "system of intercommunication." This is all very well and good for an experienced English speaker, but newbies (and computers) get headaches trying to sort that out. That's just something English does (along with mugging other languages in dark allies and rifling their pockets for spare vocabulary). The last time someone tried to inflict another language's rules on English, we got the "rules" regarding split infinitives, the word "and", and sentence-ending prepositions, courtesy of Latin-infatuated pedants. They tried to stick the rules for Latin onto English because Latin was the "ideal" language and ignored usage going back to the foundations of English. Yes, you really can write "to boldly go", begin a sentence with "and" (but if you do that too much, you'll look like the King James Bible), and put a preposition on the end of a sentence. English always has. Latin can't or shouldn't. But that's Latin, and applying Latin rules to English makes no more sense than applying English rules to Latin, despite the best efforts of 18th-century pedants. While there are a few whose origins are lost in history ("kick the bucket", for instance) most idioms have a clear and obvious meaning if used correctly. Pouring (what?) over papers is ridiculous, but poring makes perfect sense when you know that "to pore" is "to study". Except, of course, that people taught to pronounce words and then understand the meaning of the sound, rather than to understand the word itself, and who have never seen "pore" in that usage, just use the word "pour" instead (it sounds the same, after all, and they've been taught that's all that matters) and just say "it's an idiom" when asked what it actually means. If you think of "its"/"it's" as "the letters that make the sound 'itz'" then you'll never know which one to use. But if you realize that "it's" is short for "it is" and substitute as needed to check, and know that "its" is just like "his", you'll always know which one to use. Except, of course, that idiots have taken to writing "her's", "our's", etc., and I expect to see "hi's" any moment. Not only has using apostrophes to make plurals become common, but now they're being used to precede T (yes, "wen't") and before S in words that simply end in S. But, y'know, "English is a living language", right? So "hi's" should be an acceptable alternative to "his" and "wan't" should be a perfectly valid way to write "want", shouldn't it? (I'm inclined to blame fantasy authors who think their characters' stupid names are less stupid if they throw in random apostrophes, but that's just me). I strongly recommend this website for checking words. This is why people should know their language. Picking a word that sounds kind of like the one they mean is proof that they don't. Words are a writer's tools. I would no more want to read a book by a writer who didn't know how to use his or her tools than I would want to have my car repaired by a mechanic equally unfamiliar with the tools of the trade.