INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

General socialising and light-hearted discussions take place in here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#361 Postby Tetenterre » April 7th, 2015, 8:57 am

Latest post of the previous page:

I've probably said this before, but the marvellous Tony Nagle, my O-level English teacher (who did his damnedest to make the language and literature interesting to adolescent boys who just wanted to get out onto the sports fields or swimming pool), drummed into us that all the rules of grammar, etc. should be adhered to unless breaking them improved clarity.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#362 Postby Dave B » April 7th, 2015, 10:14 am

Tetenterre wrote:I've probably said this before, but the marvellous Tony Nagle, my O-level English teacher (who did his damnedest to make the language and literature interesting to adolescent boys who just wanted to get out onto the sports fields or swimming pool), drummed into us that all the rules of grammar, etc. should be adhered to unless breaking them improved clarity.

Or creates an appropriate effect?

Ultimately rhetoric seems to break almost all the rules - dramatic pauses, even mid sentence, are commonplace.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#363 Postby animist » April 7th, 2015, 12:29 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:If it [the Oxford comma] seems to be called for to clarify meaning, then I think of recasting the sentence.
I don't think that recasting sentences gets out of the need for the Oxford comma if it separates long complex clauses
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Singular they is an abomination. If you cannot follow the old rule, you should write he or she throughout the paragraph. And it serves you right! :D
sorry, what is the "old rule"? Noone is going to keep writing "he or she"; I go for "s/he" in writing, but "they" is just too convenient in speech to be banned
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I applaud the gentleman who objects to due to for because of. I still believe that matches are cancelled owing to rain and that rain is what the cancellations are due to.
I must say that is totally ridiculous and indeed incomprehensible

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#364 Postby Alan H » April 14th, 2015, 5:25 pm

When a copy editor at The New York Times Book Review reviews a book by a copy editor at The New Yorker: ‘Between You & Me,’ by Mary Norris
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10973
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#365 Postby Nick » April 15th, 2015, 7:16 pm

In my local PC World today. Saw a hand-written sign . "Fed-up of your phone?"

I pointed it out to them and they just looked dumbfounded..... :sad2:

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 626
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#366 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » April 20th, 2015, 8:12 pm

animist wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:If it [the Oxford comma] seems to be called for to clarify meaning, then I think of recasting the sentence.
I don't think that recasting sentences gets out of the need for the Oxford comma if it separates long complex clauses
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Singular they is an abomination. If you cannot follow the old rule, you should write he or she throughout the paragraph. And it serves you right! :D
sorry, what is the "old rule"? Noone is going to keep writing "he or she"; I go for "s/he" in writing, but "they" is just too convenient in speech to be banned
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:I applaud the gentleman who objects to due to for because of. I still believe that matches are cancelled owing to rain and that rain is what the cancellations are due to.
I must say that is totally ridiculous and indeed incomprehensible



Ouch! :D

I seem to have caused some irritation without having meant to. So I'd better explain myself.

An example used by Gowers is: "... the Bishops of Winchester, Salisbury and Bath and Wells..."
If the reader does not know that Bath and Wells get one bishop between two and not one apiece, the Oxford comma may help. However, I prefer ( with a nervous glance in the direction of Gowers' mighty shade) to write "...the Bishops of Winchester, of Salisbury and of Bath and Wells..."

For long complex clauses, which are likely to contain commas anyway, the semicolon is useful.


You may have a point about singular they in speech. I am never first to use it, but if the other bod uses it, I dislike shifting away from it.
The " old rule" I meant is the one drummed into me at school. You say he or she at the outset to make yourself clear; then you choose one and stick to it.


Owing to has been fighting a losing battle with due to for many years. The usage I prefer is this: due to means roughly the same as caused by, and it goes with nouns. Owing to means roughly the same as because of, but it prefers clauses to nouns.

Owing to rain, the match was cancelled.
The cancellation was due to rain.

The BBC and other institutions have shifted towards due to, and owing to may die out soon. Ah well! Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catoni... :D
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#367 Postby thundril » April 20th, 2015, 10:25 pm

Just heard Tom Sutcliffe, on the R4 prog Start the Week, announcing that "metaphor is a two-edged sword".
Quite!

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10973
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#368 Postby Nick » April 21st, 2015, 5:25 pm

I sometimes that "the Bishop of Bath and Wells" was specifically created to fit into limericks, mischievous song lyrics and for ecclesiastic visitors to Blandings Castle... :D

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6284
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#369 Postby animist » April 22nd, 2015, 9:28 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Ouch! :D
I seem to have caused some irritation without having meant to.
sorry Lord M, I did not mean to sound irritated, more puzzled

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:An example used by Gowers is: "... the Bishops of Winchester, Salisbury and Bath and Wells..."
If the reader does not know that Bath and Wells get one bishop between two and not one apiece, the Oxford comma may help. However, I prefer ( with a nervous glance in the direction of Gowers' mighty shade) to write "...the Bishops of Winchester, of Salisbury and of Bath and Wells..."
don't Gower in front of shades, that's not humanist! :wink:

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:For long complex clauses, which are likely to contain commas anyway, the semicolon is useful
oh yes, oh yes!!! Not useful, though, instead essential

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Owing to has been fighting a losing battle with due to for many years. The usage I prefer is this: due to means roughly the same as caused by, and it goes with nouns. Owing to means roughly the same as because of, but it prefers clauses to nouns.

Owing to rain, the match was cancelled.
The cancellation was due to rain.
I still don't get this: rain is rain whether at the front of the sentence or at the back. Anyway, this really should be called the Oxford lost c(l)ause :wink:

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:The BBC and other institutions have shifted towards due to, and owing to may die out soon. Ah well! Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catoni... :D
thanks for this milord: yet another example of my ignorance of the Latin language despite my getting a reasonable "O" Level pass some years ago

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 626
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#370 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » June 14th, 2015, 1:10 am

I noticed this in The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... s-radicals

In The Power of the Powerless, Havel didn’t only define resistance to dictatorship: he also examined the failings of modern western society
( italics added)


If the journalist wants to contrast or to cap one of Havel's achievements with another, idiom calls for not only defined.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#371 Postby Alan H » July 28th, 2015, 12:45 am

2015-07-28_00h44_19.png
2015-07-28_00h44_19.png (175.64 KiB) Viewed 2824 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#372 Postby Dave B » April 9th, 2016, 5:43 pm

Stretching this to poor English in general, in this case on a "legal" form:

Having trouble insuring the structure of my flat, won't go into that, complex story, I opted for "contents only" for the moment. Except, when checking the forns I noticed something confusing and wrong. I could not sign it.

Part of the form asked two security basedcqyestions, I'll offer these and the answer that the bloke in the brokers entered without asking me:

[Is your home . . .]
1. unoccupied by an adult throughout the day (other than shopping [• • •]) No
2. unoccupied by an adult throughout the night (other than shopping[• • •] Yes

So my property is not so occupied during the day if I am not there - the answer is correct. But, seemingly, my properly is unoccupied during the night unless I go shopping etc. The questions are open to interpretation.

Considering the warnings of dire retribution should one make a false entry I think it only right that the other side get things explicitly clear as well. Even their staff (the brokers is actually owned by the insurance company) can't get it right, though he seemed well competent on the difficult stuff. The change from "unoccupied" to "occupied", in both cases might put it right. Have emailed the company and await their response. If any.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#373 Postby Alan H » April 9th, 2016, 6:05 pm

Dave B wrote:Stretching this to general poor ENglish, in this case on a "legal" form:

Having trouble insuring the structure of my flat, won't go into that, complex story, I opted for "contents only" for the moment. Except, when checking the forns I notived something confusing and wrong.

Part of the form asked two security basedcqyestions, I'll offer these and the answer that the bloke in the brokers entered without asking me:

[Is your home . . .]
1. unoccupied by an adult throughout the day (other than shopping [• • •]) No
2. unoccupied by an adult throughout the night (other than shopping[• • •] Yes

So my property is not so occupied during the day if I am not there - the answer is correct. But, seemingly, my properly is unoccupied during the night unless I go shopping etc. The questions are open to interpretation.

Considering the warnings of dire retribution should one make a false entry I think it only right that the other side get things explicitly clear as well. Even their staff (the brokers is actually owned by the insurance company) can't get it right, though he seemed well competent on the difficult stuff. The change from "unoccupied" to "occupied", in both cases might put it right. Have emailed the company and await their response. If any.
:puzzled:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#374 Postby Dave B » April 9th, 2016, 7:10 pm

Er, you expressing puzzlement at my points or the questions/answers, Alan? :D

Hang on, reading it yet again I think both answered could be interpretted as incorrect . . . Or are they? Um ... er ... duh!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22746
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#375 Postby Alan H » April 9th, 2016, 7:39 pm

Dave B wrote:Er, you expressing puzzlement at my points or the questions/answers, Alan? :D
Ha! The questions, of course!

Hang on, reading it yet again I think both answered could be interpretted as incorrect . . . Or are they? Um ... er ... duh!
My brain hurts...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#376 Postby Dave B » April 9th, 2016, 7:48 pm

Alan H wrote:
Dave B wrote:Er, you expressing puzzlement at my points or the questions/answers, Alan? :D
Ha! The questions, of course!

Hang on, reading it yet again I think both answered could be interpretted as incorrect . . . Or are they? Um ... er ... duh!
My brain hurts...


Yeah, me too, wonder if a glass or two of vino is an appropriate cure - though that does sound counterintuitive. Bugger, go for it, Dave!

Cheers!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15276
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#377 Postby jaywhat » April 10th, 2016, 6:34 am

He brought it in Sainsbury's and bought it with him.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3227
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#378 Postby Tetenterre » April 11th, 2016, 1:40 pm

This is from the "Director of Learners" at the local Adult Ed college for whom I teach evening classes:

We are planning to close our Administration office [in location]from 1st July 2016 whilst maintaining our provision in the out centres, and moving as many classes from [location] to other centre in the [named locations in local area]...
There are no typos or missing words, etc.

It's a education college, FFS! You'd think he'd be able to write sentences that actually have meaning...

[rant over -- for now, anyway]
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#379 Postby Dave B » April 11th, 2016, 1:55 pm

Tetenterre wrote:This is from the "Director of Learners" at the local Adult Ed college for whom I teach evening classes:

We are planning to close our Administration office [in location]from 1st July 2016 whilst maintaining our provision in the out centres, and moving as many classes from [location] to other centre in the [named locations in local area]...
There are no typos or missing words, etc.

It's a education college, FFS! You'd think he'd be able to write sentences that actually have meaning...

[rant over -- for now, anyway]
Looks like some burk signed off a draft without reading it.

I Tipexed a required comma on a painted sign in the city library. It was removed about a week later (not noticed until then?), then replaced the next day (error finally realised?) I was "Computer Buddy"ing there at the time.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#380 Postby Dave B » May 5th, 2016, 5:18 pm

So, the word "so" at tge start of any response, but especially after a request or question, now seems universal.

So, scientists, politicians, reporters and every manner of person one might think had a good knowledge of English is doing it.

So, I suppose this can be considred a part of English grammar now.

So, there is little point in my getting het up about it.

So, I will just have to accept it or tune it out somehow.

So, how do you feel about this?

So, a PS
So, how about a "So" thread where every sentence has to start, "So . . ."
So, would that be fun?
So, be honest now!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

kbell
Posts: 1146
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 11:27 pm

Re: Grammer and phrases wot is irritating

#381 Postby kbell » October 30th, 2016, 2:49 pm

You know how you hear a new word or phrase for the first time, learn its meaning, then it seems you're hearing it all the time?
I give you: 'to rip someone a new one'.
'He ripped me a new one when he found out', 'I'm gonna rip her a new one over this'.

Whenever I hear it I feel like this :headbang:

Is this the most ridiculous phrase in history? And is it, as I suspect, a recent arrival or have I just been lucky up to now?
Kathryn


Return to “Social Club”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest