Grammar, punctuation and syntax irritations

[Brendan]

So was I but then I do think your all a bit anal with the hole spilling and grammer thing.

[Jah Lush]

I wasn't born before or after 1970. I was built out of bits of old Meccano and Airfix circa 1958.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Hole spilling? I thought no-one born after 1970 was cognisant with the great Maestro Cribbins.

[david_carnell]

Spilling? That's just how Brendan pronounces it. Spell it like you say it, eh Bren?

The whole Star Trek thing over split infinitives is artisitc license.

"Boldy to go where no man has gone before" sounds dreadful!

The ones that I can never use, despite their apparent correct-ness are compound plurals. The plural is added to the original noun rather than the secondary, so you should say:

"I'll have two gins and tonic please" rather than "gin and tonics" but really, who's the one who's going to sound like a spanner. Or courts martial, poets laureate etc etc. Pah.

[KalamityKel]

*nods in FULL understanding*

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Steady on D_C - if you wear tweeds you have to talk the lingo.

[david_carnell]

Tell you what PGC, you pay for 'em and I'll order as many gins and tonic as you can drink for the two of us - whether I sound like a wally or not.

[giggirl]

Wanting to preserve our beautiful language is no more or less anal than wanting to preserve a beautiful building or a painting.

Our language has obviously evolved as otherwise we would all still be talking Latin. My fear is that language is becoming impoverished, not as a response to our changing society/needs, but because we are too lazy to be bothered to learn the rules (and they really aren?t that hard). The texting generation doesn?t help, but what about ?Toys ?r Us? and other such monstrous abuses? Vocabulary is shrinking and the non-existent apostrophe is just the thin end of the wedge.

Language snobs don?t help matters because, like all snobs, they tend to alienate people and create an exclusive environment. Incidetnally, "exclusive" is one of my most hated words.

Basic grammar is not difficult. I feel blessed that I had a great teacher who simplified everything. Picture Julie Andrews singing ?Doe Ray Me? ? that?s not far off my English teacher. It didn?t occur to me that I had lucked-out until I came across people who approached grammar in a ?there be dragons? fashion. It?s a shame.

[Asset]

What is a language snob?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Moos Wrote:

I saw that one, Tony, but felt I don't know you well enough to point it out.

B)To be honest the only thing that will offend me is if I can't havean affectionate laugh with someone within 10 minutes of meeting them initially.If someone doesn't feel "safe" with me a.s.a.p. then I have failed miserably.

There's not too much in this life that I take too seriously,certainly not myself.:))

So next time feel free!(tu)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

What is a language snob?

Think that's you and me, kid.

[Moos]

In that case, Tony, allow me to point out that it is customary to insert a space after typing a comma and before starting the next word.

Pint?

But one does have to be careful. Wasn't there someone on here who chucked her toys most royally at Sue once after having her spelling jokily questioned? Cor blimey, says I, not for me, no fear. I'm not from the BBC.

[giggirl]

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What is a language snob?

I was in a hurry when I wrote that and I should have expressed myself better. For me, language snobs are those who make language as difficult as possible just to get the point across that they are clever.

The whole reason for grammar to exist is to make written words easy to read and understand (there is no other reason for it to exist, surely?). Conversely, it can be used to make text more difficult to understand. This is perverse, but I do know people who do that.

Famously, James Joyce wrote a whole chapter in Ulysses with no punctuation except for a full-stop at the end. Clever, yes. Readable, absolutely not (God knows I've tried).

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

I'm not artistic or poetic by nature so language, both written and spoken, to me is just a means of communication. As long as I'm understood I don't really care too much about not knowing the correct grammer.

It doesn't seem important as long as the picture I want to convey in words manages to be understood by the person I'm talking/writing to.

Bsd grammer does however give my class away and that pisses me off sometimes. Some middleclass grammer-nerds eyes glaze over when I talk as they assume, what I have to say is not worth listening to because the way I say it is not the way they do.

[giggirl]

Chav - your grammar is excellent. Your posts are always easy to read. That's as good as it gets with grammar.

[SimonM]

>>Can't we use Nominative,Accusative,Dative and Genetive Tenses like the good old days? <<

Those are cases not tenses....oh wait....you were being ironic right?! And it's "genitive"!

SimonM ("A" level Latin, grade F)

[David Mc]

On split infinitives (from Bill Bryson's excellent "Mother Tongue" book):

...English grammar is so complex and confusing for the one very simple reason that its rules and terminology are based on Latin - a language with which it has precious little in common. In Latin, to take one example, it is not possible to split an infinitive. So in English, the early authorities decided, it should not be possible to split an infinitive either. But there is no reason why we shouldn't, any more than we should forsake instant coffee and air travel because they weren't available to the Romans...

...Nothing illustrates the scope for prejudice in English more than the issue of a split infinitive. Some people feel ridiculously strongly about it. When the British Conservative politician Jock Bruce-Gardyne was economic secretary to the Treasury in the early 1980s, he returned unread any departmental correspondence containing a split infinitive. (It should perhaps be pointed out that a split infinitive is one in which an adverb comes between "to" and a verb, as in "to quickly look".) I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive.

1. Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.

2. Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that is without the support of any recognised authority of the last 200 years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous, inelegant and patently contorted.

It is exceedingly difficult to find any authority who condemns the split infinitive - Theodore Bernstein, H. W. Fowler, Ernest Gowers, Eric Partridge, Rudolph Flesch, Wilson Follett, Roy H. Copperud, and others too tedious to enumerate here all agree that there is no logical reason not to split an infinitive.

Otto Jespersen even suggests that, strictly speaking, it isn't actually possible to split an infinitive. As he puts it: '"To"...is no more an essential part of an infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a nominative, and no one would think of calling "the good man" a split nominative.'

Separate thread called "Grammar School" anyone?! :-S

[Tony.London Suburbs]

What Sir William Bryson and David Mc said.:))

Currently reading "A Short History Of Nearly Everything"..."majestically inspirational"-TLS>:D<

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Moos Wrote:

In that case, Tony, allow me to point out that it is customary to insert a space after typing a comma and before starting the next word.

Pint?

My profoundest and eternal gratitude.:))

p.s. 'ere whaddyamean "Pint?"...Pint who/what/how? You come on here with "Pint" and then disappear over the distant horizon, wotsitallabout?::oB)

[Moos]

Chav said 'As long as I'm understood I don't really care too much about not knowing the correct grammar.'

Bang on. And I agree with giggirl's response. I couldn't care less about the split infinitive, and I don't think that its omission makes speech or writing any clearer or more elegant.

But in some instances bad grammar is distracting and does make you less easy to understand. People who aren't taught to write and speak clearly - no, this isn't about accent - are automatically disabled in life.

Can I veer off topic and bring in vocabulary irritations? People using 'disinterested' where they mean 'uninterested' impoverishes the language - now we have two words that mean the same thing, and have lost a useful word meaning something completely different.

[SeanMacGabhann]

"disabled" Moos? Or at a disadvantage?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I wasn't aware we had lost a word. Maybe I'm a bit biased.

[Moos]

SeanMac, que? Sorry, don't get your post.

PGC, I know You haven't but lots of other people have. And I think it's sad.

but maybe it's the dinosaurs talking.

edited for embarrassing Freudian slip*!

Is that rude? I mean, talking about slips. Filthy really.

[James]

>>Bad grammer does however give my class away and that pisses me off sometimes. Some middleclass grammer-nerds eyes glaze over when I talk as they assume, what I have to say is not worth listening to because the way I say it is not the way they do.

I really don't think this is a class issue CWALD. If people are looking down on you because of your accent that's deplorable.

But when it comes to grammar and spelling we have to uphold what's correct for everyone's benefit (the point has been made that allowing kids to get things wrong does them a disservice in the end). I don't think this is 'snobby' - quite the reverse in fact.

Incidentally, I owe my good knowledge of basic grammar and punctuation to a fantastic teacher at (state) primary school.

[SeanMacGabhann]

sorry Moos - I was being slightly obtuse and referring to you differentiating between the terms "childless" v "childfree" and wondering if disabled had negative connotations that disadvantaged doesn't when yuo wrote:

I'm not in disagreement with your points by the way - just being slightly pedantic