Mine's OK, I think. I do however have a couple of blind spots that I really struggle with:
Less or fewer? - until a few years ago, I was a confirmed 'less' user, and didn't even realize that I was getting it wrong.
Inform - within the last year or so, I have become aware that 'inform' doesn't just mean 'make aware of'; it has a second use meaning 'to influence'. I genuinely do not understand how I got this far through life without knowing that.
Data - I have never been able to get my head around the word 'data' being a plural. In my mind, it's 'the data is' and not 'the data are'.
In Latin, data is the plural of datum and, historically and in specialized scientific fields, it is also treated as a plural in English, taking a plural verb, as in the data were collected and classified. In modern non-scientific use, however, it is generally not treated as a plural.
So I think you are OK with your use of, unless you are in a specific scientific environment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I just had a debate about the Oxford comma for half an hour with some colleagues - as we have been advised to use it in any work documents we produce.
I think I had naturally been using it but I have some colleagues who seem vehemently against it!
Polarising, not to mention gripping, chat!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Surely grammar is concerned with syntax - the arrangement of words? The examples you give seem to be mostly concerned with semantics - the meaning of words.
Last edited by M4tt; 16th August 2022 at 09:54.
I struggle with “doable” which seems vogue at the moment .
“ Achievable “ appears to be the the same to me , furthermore it has stood the test of time as well as it being understood .
Doable seems a cheap and bland alternative …. Maybe it’s me ….
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
There is a phrase in increasingly common parlance that appears to be accepted even by the media that annoys me. Whenever I bring it up, there is invariably somebody that will tell me that language evolves. However, if you break down the meaning of the phrase, it simply cannot make sense. That phrase is "for free". It is impossible to get something for free. You can get something for nothing. You can get something at no cost. You can get something free of charge but you simply cannot get something for free. Free is not an amount - in this context, it is an abbreviation of the term 'free of charge'. I remember being pulled up on the use of the phrase by my father when I was a young lad and it stayed with me ever since.
Data - I have never been able to get my head around the word 'data' being a plural. In my mind, it's 'the data is' and not 'the data are'.[/QUOTE]
It was only during the covid briefings that I became aware of this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry BSB, but language DOES evolve.
Grammar while being an important component of language, is primarily present to ensure that what you mean to say or write is comprehensible and understandable. Beyond that, it’s regrettably often used covertly to judge others who may not have “benefitted” from a certain type of education.
As language usage changes over time, so does what is deemed to be acceptable and what is not. Often when grammar shibboleths are examined, they are found not to be hard and fast "rules" after all. Clarity of meaning is key.
I think we are fortunate not to have the equivalent of an Académie Française, which regulates what is French. Let the language grow as it will.
No matter which way you look at it, free is a state and not an amount.Originally Posted by dkpw
Grammar is important no matter what type of education you have - it makes clear what might otherwise be misconstrued, in a consistent way. In English, spelling/vocab is inconsistent and one of the hardest things to learn and I'm happy to make allowances for that, though there are some misusages which are not easily forgivable (their/there is one of them imo).
It's worth mentioning that "formal" grammar exists in all languages. Indeed this an advantage that a native speaker has when dealing with officialdom - my wife is fluent in English, but I tend to write formal letters for her - she just does not have the grammar/vocabulary/nuance of a native speaker. Similarly, Spanish also has a particular grammar used in formal communications which is very hard to learn so she does those letters.
I do a lot of writing for work.
And I gotta say...
..."Grammarly" frequently stops me from making a right tit of myself =)
She passed years ago!
My spellings not good!
:)
Grammarly is a life-saver sometimes. I use it a lot.
Anyway, I'm off to look at some Seiko's and Rolex's at AD's.
Yes language does evolve and in all fairness it also improves it. Also the language is spoken in America, Australia, India, Canada and a host of other places, all of whom add their own changes to the language. It is impossible to stop it changing.
The only thing that irks me is when someones says they will put 110% effort into doing something in order to impress. They just make themselves look stupid but you have to go along with it as it's becoming more common.
Also emails have created a language of their own that impacts (impacts is one of my stupid expressions) on the language, so it's unstoppable.
I'm always conflicted about grammar - by which we often mean linguistics, and thus fall at the first hurdle...
I had the 'benefit' of what was laughingly known as a 'Comprehensive' education which, of course, was anything-but, and so have never really got entirely up-to-speed with the full set of rules. Like most of us, I mix-and-match according more to whim than convention. Logical flow and consistent tense routinely escape me.
The notion of a pedantic, rule-bound grammar in English is a fairly modern innovation - an adjunct of Empire, and its enormous appetite for administrators and civil-servants. In such a vast and rambling organisation, accuracy and consistency were vital, especially when you're busy ramming your language down the unwilling-throats of Johnny Foreigner.
Before that, we simply cared less and absorbed new words as new rulers ebbed and flowed or new immigrants shipped-in. Instead of pedantic rules, the well-educated ghettoised their discourse by not using the mongrel English at-all, cleverly preferring Latin and thus avoiding the criticism of native-speakers by dint of them having been dead for hundreds of years.
The present-day system seems to perch between laissez-faire and anarchy, and this doesn't seem terribly helpful - we've sacrificed accuracy and consistency at the altar of 'feelings', where no-one should feel inadequate. This is fine, but removes aspiration, as well as accuracy, while still leaving an inarticulate and disenfranchised underclass behind.
Low standards hurt us all, and I often find myself deploring the unceasing train of neologisms that appear in the remote enclaves of science that are familiar to me. These terms often arise, not to describe new concepts, but because their authors are unfamiliar with the scientific terminology of previous generations, or even with good, accurate written English, and so could not express themselves precisely. That may seem trivial, but it's a clear indicator of inadequate, neglectful research. The consequences of this can be expensive and even dangerous.
The worst offenders are - paradoxically - often native English speakers. Those for whom English is a second language are frequently speakers of languages which are inherently more grammatically-rigorous than English, and so they habitually apply customary rigour to English as well, often with excellent results. The worst-of-the-worst come from among those who arrogantly believe theirs is the greatest nation in the World and so their casually-mangled syntax must also be definitive...
*sigh*
That data is 110% doable and it's for free.
Now it makes sense why you're not allowed to mention the word free in sales and instead you must say 100% discount.
I think this is too much of a shortcut.
The Academie is much more necessary in French than in English because of the very limited spread of the language. Think of English as the Borg.
The AF allows French to evolve; it just takes a long time for it and thus proper evolution makes its way and fashionable turns of phrase don’t as by the time they are examined they fell out of fashion.
It doesn’t get it right all the time, mind, and should look towards Quebec more often: French Canadians are dead against any Anglicism and any new English word finds a new French equivalent.
The best and most ridiculous example is e-mail.
The word made its way in everyday French faster than a wildfire. The AF finally decided that ‘mel’ was an acceptable substitute. It’s fundamentally stupid as it would have been better to keep the English spelling that at list marked it as a foreign word and kept a legitimacy. But French Canadians were smarter: since mail in French is courrier, they changed the last letter to ‘l’ to make courriel. Every French speaker I met understood the word even though it was the first time they were hearing it for over 2/3rd of them. If you write mel (as oppose to saying it) you will find many people ignore the word.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Data had a cat called Spot
LOL. Anything can be free, be it free from charge, free from inhibition. I wasn't disputing the word 'free' but rather the phrase 'for free'.
You should have run that through Grammarly first.
A thread that I will follow with interest! First, because I'm a non-native writer and I used to be a Dutch language teacher. I know that my English is far from perfect and sometimes I don't have the correct words to express myself. Luckily, most forumites give me some slack. And I don't mind being corrected. (Every day is a schoolday). Finally, the free version of Grammarly is very helpful. And I think that the 'expensive' version is close to perfect. My wife wrote all her Harvard papers and theses (plural!) with the aid of Grammarly and she never got a complaint or comment. If it's good enough for Harvard, it must be good enough for most companies as well!
Only recently, an American friend educated me on the use of the word 'interesting'. For us, Dutch, the Dutch version (interessant) implies that you're really interested in the subject or the facts presented by another. It's an invitation for: tell me more!
My American friend told me that 'interesting' is for him something like: 'Nice of you to tell me this, but deep inside I'm not interested at all!' More or less the opposite of the Dutch meaning of interesting/interessant.
Is this an American thing or also an English (GB?) thing?
It's used that way in the UK (or at least in the parts I frequest), to politely acknowledge that someone has said something uninteresting or irrelevant to the current topic. This usage is equivalent to the slightly ruder expression 'Cool story Bro!'. In business, you'd proably say something like "thanks for sharing that" before moving swiftly on.
I bet you mark and make comments in green pen.
There is no such thing as American English. There is English and there are mistakes.
I believe that in English, there isn’t the “it’s nice of you to tell me” bit
There are more…
http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/201...-mean.html?m=1
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Excellent! Both the link and the quote.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I tried to, but it fell-asleep half way through.
I need "Verbosarly"...
I nearly wrote ‘interesting’, but I shouldn’t…
Difficult when a polite word has gone over to the Dark Side…
I was listening to Word of Mouth on Radio 4 this afternoon. It was all about the word 'like', its various contexts and meanings.
Unfortunately I find this modern linguistic trend so annoying I had to switch over to Radio 3. It's official I'm a a grumpy old bugger!
For those more tolerant than me here's a link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08g5533
Gary
There's an (apocryphal) story similar to No. 10 on your list. During WW2, an American military commander was talking to his British leader in the field (sorry, I have zero knowledge of military ranks). The British soldier told the American that things were "getting a bit sticky", which the American took to mean that things were going OK and that no additional support was required from him. Shortly afterwards, the British unit was wiped out.
My personal favourite difference between UK and US is that we use "I couldn't care less" and they use "I could care less" to mean the exact same thing!
And when I first moved from Ireland to England, I couldn't understand why people looked at me when I said "amn't I?". (It's a standard phrase in Irish English, and seems a much more logical way of expressing "am I not" than "aren't I".)
There are plenty of people in the US who use “I couldn’t care less” too. I think “I could care less” is quite restricted to certain regions/groups.
From the Illustrated Texas Dictionary:
The BBC is not the bastion it once was.
Stadiums rather than stadia - & TZ is not immune - forums rather than fora - whatever next?
z
We all judge to our own levels. The poor use of their, there and they're gets to me. Of instead of have is a modern irritation. The BBC is still plunging the depths to find people who can dumb it down as much as possible. Fara Williams on the Euros was unwatchable.
Last edited by Russ; 17th August 2022 at 13:57.
One I've noticed is overuse of 'backstory' instead of 'history'.
A story (novel, film etc.) has a backstory, a person or watch certainly doesn't.
I've noticed that lately, it sits one rung down on the cringe ladder from "my journey".
"Can I get an espresso?" and other similar requests really get on my tits.
Pencil actually, so I can correct my mistakes.I bet you mark and make comments in green pen.
Also I can't stand Grammerly as I find it overly prescriptive and lacking in nuance.
Another awful Americanism, and used by my American daughter in law when we are in a restaurant. But she is in her own country so I grin and bear it.
What's worse is when Brits use American baseball terms, often seen on here, like, "step up to the plate", "touch base" etc etc.
Last but not least, the cringeworthy use of "guys". I'm afraid it seems to be ingrained over here now - probably too many lovers of that awful show "Friends".
Cheers,
Neil.
In America, "guys" has been a commonly used word for at least 70 years, not unlike "lads" or "blokes."
Or “chaps”.
Something like the concept of zero, naught, nadir represented by 0 etc. the concept of the lack of something irks some philosophers.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
You really wouldn’t like it here in PT - there are voluminous variants of type of coffee here.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
What gets on my t@ts is the use of “same”. As in:
”Get me your report on my desk by noon tomorrow “.
”Sure, I’ll handle the request for same”
aggghhhh
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Sadly (in my view), there are no standards and the awful use/abuse of the language on television does put me off to such an extent I sometimes have to switch off. I think it’s a bit of a fetish of mine so I accept I’m out of step with the majority. “Innit.”
This explains quite well:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/word.../fewer-vs-less
Interestingly, I always thought the supermarket checkout “5 items or less” was incorrect and, from memory, Marks and Spencer were shamed into using “5 items or fewer”. The article suggests that this is maybe a case where common incorrect usage becomes accepted.
That was interesting, thanks (and I don't mean interesting as in 'Cool Story Bro"). It's made me think that my use of 'less' rather than 'fewer' stems from my engineering background; such as less than or greater than.
"Can I get" is widely used in Scotland - it was one of the expressions I noticed when I moved here 20 years ago so not new either.
I am still troubled by the proper plural term for Lexus.
"Reduced down" boils my gears.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
