For the linguistic pedants!

[The White Rabbit]

Not just the Internet - shop and market signs use the inappropriate apostrophe so much you could be forgiven for thinking it's compulsory.

[Ozexpatriate]

I'm not getting at you in particular; it's probably the number one mistake made on the Internet!

No offence taken sir.

 

Autotyping and not checking! Pater peccavi. As inevitably happens in grammar threads.

[Adams442T]

Spotted this tonight and thought it might find a home here...........

 

 

[bluebottle]

No offence taken sir.

 

Autotyping and not checking! Pater peccavi. As inevitably happens in grammar threads.

 

Three Hail Marys then, Michael. 

[PGC]

Please, in this thread above all, can we understand the difference between "it's" and "its"! 

 

I'm not getting at you in particular; it's probably the number one mistake made on the Internet! 

 

Can we also please start trying to educate the unwashed (ooops, sorry, is that un PC? Oh dear, not again! :-) )the difference between there's and theirs!

 

Phil

[Pacific231G]

Can we also please start trying to educate the unwashed (ooops, sorry, is that un PC? Oh dear, not again! :-) )the difference between there's and theirs!

 

Phil

Is this a particular grammatical problem for exhibition goers then ?

[Metr0Land]

If we're being pedantic please can we call them exhibition attendees?  In my youth a goer was a young lady who... well, let's not go there.......

[petethemole]

Let's not confuse are mental capacities with are personal habits. Many highly intelligent people our lacking on the hygiene front.

[Jeff Smith]

My two pet hates in modern (developing?) English have already been partially mentioned.

 

'They' instead of 'It' for a company or organisation - seems to be more and more commonly used both sides of the pond.

 

'There' when 'their' or 'they're' should be used.  Again popular in US and British English. 

[bluebottle]

If we're being pedantic please can we call them exhibition attendees?  In my youth a goer was a young lady who... well, let's not go there.......

 

Pedantry upon pedantry:

The OED does list "attendee", giving the meaning as "One who (merely) attends a meeting, conference, etc", but this is "orig. and chiefly U.S.".

The correct form for British English is "attender": "One who gives heed or attention; an observer".

To be fair, I frequently use Scots and Yorkshire vocabulary and spelling, and would accept different spellings from those for whom they are standard usage.

[Ian Abel]

Please, in this thread above all, can we understand the difference between "it's" and "its"! 

 

I'm not getting at you in particular; it's probably the number one mistake made on the Internet! 

Edwin, I'm not one to disagree, but I think the "your" and "you're" mistakes are number one, at least in my experience. As always I'm happy to be wrong.

 

Living in the land of awful English, well that American excuse, I'm often taken to explaining, in writing, "...your command of the English language could use improvement, but I understand as you're American..."

[meil]

Can we also please start trying to educate the unwashed (ooops, sorry, is that un PC? Oh dear, not again! :-) )the difference between there's and theirs!

 

Phil

 

Or even there, their, they're and there's

[bluebottle]

Let's not confuse are mental capacities with are personal habits. Many highly intelligent people our lacking on the hygiene front.

 

A lot are pretty objectionable in the rear, as well.

[tomparryharry]

I need my eyes tested.

 

I thought the thread title was 'linguistic penguins'......

 

A trip to the opticians, methinks......

 

Ian, 

[Pacific231G]

An ageing Highlandman I worked with often used those terms in informal situations; as in "Myself will take care of that." and "Ah, it's yourself." I suppose that that reflected a Gaelic speaker's punctilliousness in avoiding the indecorously direct "I" and "you". I found this quite endearing.

When speaking to my neighbours , I often use "non-standard" grammatical forms, and I've noticed that some of them seem to try to speak "correctly" (I pass as well-spoken around here). As ma auld granny yased tae say; "Ye speak so as folk wull understand whit ye're sayin' "

Oh "It's yourself" or even "tis yourself"  is delightful in a soft Gaelic (Scottish or Irish) brogue.

You're quite correct to identify other grammatical forms than "Standard English"  as "non-standard" rather than "incorrect". Standard English is a somwhat artificial dialect of English normally taught in schools and required by most style-guides. Standard-English is useful for teaching youngsters and non-native speakers how to use the language but it has no official status; we leave that sort of thing to countries where officially recognised institutions define the "correct" use of the language. 

I found an interesting commentary on Standard English here http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm

[Jeff Smith]

Funny how the author (himself) has used 'I Myself have......' in the opening paragraph which I would have thought was an unnecessary extra qualification.

 

However this could probably be counted as 'style'.

[wombatofludham]

Funnily enough, despite being someone who tries to maintain high standards of English and a staunch defender of the use of the so-called "passive voice" in formal communication, I don't have such a problem with occasional rule bending for stylistic purposes.  For example, the "split infinitive" rule seems to send a squadron of Airbus sized wasps up the frocks of language purists and academics, yet I consider that the best known example of the split infinitive in common use, the opening titles of "Star Trek", would have sounded quite peculiar if Kirk was saying "to go boldly where no man has gone before".  In this instance, the use of "to boldly go" gives the phrase a dramatic punch and flow and to my mind is acceptable.  It is even more odd (and faintly hypocritical) when you consider that the self same wasp-gusseted academics accept all sort of linguistic acrobatics and rule bending in poetry writing.  

[Ian J.]

I think where dialogue (in fiction) or speech (in real life) is concerned, there are many allowances for non-standard grammar, and Kirk's opening monologue falls into the 'dialogue' category. What I think gets people's backs up is when too much liberty with reasonable written English is taken in the narrative (in fiction) or the description (in factual documents). Such liberties can lead to misunderstandings which can make reading the words more awkward.

[wombatofludham]

I think where dialogue (in fiction) or speech (in real life) is concerned, there are many allowances for non-standard grammar, and Kirk's opening monologue falls into the 'dialogue' category. What I think gets people's backs up is when too much liberty with reasonable written English is taken in the narrative (in fiction) or the description (in factual documents). Such liberties can lead to misunderstandings which can make reading the words more awkward.

 

I agree completely (oops, nearly made a split infinitive!) that in general rules of grammar are there to ensure that there is mutual understanding of the message.  It is a fundamental of language, and their misuse will lead to confusion.  I never really agreed with the general view of English teaching when I was at school that in creative writing such rules got in the way of free expression, even when I was doing my O levels.  However, the occasional abuse of some of the more peculiar rules which don't really aid comprehension, such as the split infinitive rule, can aid a drama.  Over-use of course would rob such "deviances" of their dramatic impact though, so I suspect we are both in agreement that the emphasis should be on occasional rule breaking!

[BoD]

Occasional rule breaking?

 

This is something up with which we shall not put.

[Pacific231G]

Funnily enough, despite being someone who tries to maintain high standards of English and a staunch defender of the use of the so-called "passive voice" in formal communication, I don't have such a problem with occasional rule bending for stylistic purposes.  For example, the "split infinitive" rule seems to send a squadron of Airbus sized wasps up the frocks of language purists and academics, yet I consider that the best known example of the split infinitive in common use, the opening titles of "Star Trek", would have sounded quite peculiar if Kirk was saying "to go boldly where no man has gone before".  In this instance, the use of "to boldly go" gives the phrase a dramatic punch and flow and to my mind is acceptable.  It is even more odd (and faintly hypocritical) when you consider that the self same wasp-gusseted academics accept all sort of linguistic acrobatics and rule bending in poetry writing.  

Excellent example wombat

I believe the objection to split infinitives by grammar pedants is based on the idea that because you cannot slip an infinitive in Latin you shouldn't do so in English. In case they hadn't noticed ENGLISH IS NOT LATIN so if it is more elegant, effective and non ambiguous to use a split infintiive then go ahead. It is far better than some of the torturing of the language that goes on to avoid them.

Contrary to what some people seem to think, particularly those who write complaining letters to Radio 4, Moses did not come down from the mointain with the ten commandments AND an English grammar primer.

[Edwin_m]

Some interesting debunking of grammar rules here.  I agree with most of it but I think he misses the point entirely on less and fewer... (can you miss a point partly?). 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 (can you miss a point partly?). 

 

Almost exactly.

 

Mike.

[Pacific231G]

Some interesting debunking of grammar rules here.  I agree with most of it but I think he misses the point entirely on less and fewer... (can you miss a point partly?). 

Thanks for that link Edwin. I thought it a very good article and he makes a sensible point about the confusion between grammar and formality. I rather agreed with him about less and fewer though I still think fewer is underused  as in "Less people are taking up railway modelling as a hobby" rather than "Fewer people are taking up railway modelling as a hobby" which to my eyes and ears does seem preferable but in other sentences 'less' might well do the job better. I definitely agree with him about "almost unique". Any objection to it is more about strict logic than grammar and it has always seemed to be to be a succint way of emphasising that something is so rare that you'll probably never encounter it again.  

 

What I object to from the linguistic pedants is their assumption that English should only be used in exactly the way they were taught at school. Mr Wackford Squeers at Dotheboys Hall may have beaten it into them that they must never ever split an infinitive but that doesn't make their judicious use by a writer wrong or "incorrect".

I think people should be given a good grasp of the basic "rules" of grammar so that they can use English effectively. At first that probably does mean following a set of rules fairly strictly but they also need to know that, once they're fluent in the language, it's far more important to write clear and elegant English. Encouraging reading of a range of writers will do that far better than any number of grammar books.

Telling someone using a chisel for the first time the "correct" way to hold it is probably a good idea; telling an experienced craftsman that they're holding it "incorrectly" is not.

 

"To boldly go where no one has been before"  really is a better sentence than "To go boldly where no one has been before" or even "Boldly to go where no one has been before" which isn't quite so dull.

[Jeff Smith]

One that always amuses me is when the cabin crew describe the flight as 'very full'.