Grammar Alert!

[Damien]

46 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

The difference between formal and informal English only became apparent to me when I began teaching English to my students here in Greece. Imagine how hard it must be not just to learn English, but to learn when and how to use formal/informal language. I am blown away by how good some of them are. If you want the top EFL certificate (Proficiency in English), you have to get the register (degree of formality) spot on as well as the grammar and vocabulary.

In my first year at University in our shared flat there was a Dutch girl on a placement year. Despite English being her second language she spoke formal English far better than I, or the others in the flat from Bradford and Manchester. Grammatically everything was perfect and she would often correct us on our spoken English!

Edited June 3, 2023 by Damien

[gingerjon]

13 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I read somewhere that the whole 'x and I' rule was basically made up by the people who wrote the first grammar books. They were obsessed with Latin and wanted English to follow Latin rules. That's why it doesn't feel natural, no one talks like that.

This is entirely true and one of the reasons why English grammar is so badly understood - it's also why we have some (not all) spellings of words that are entirely wrong. The removal of Germanic grammar and the shoehorning in of Latin grammar and French spelling - the Yanks are correct with color, we are wrong with colour - meant that teaching was wrong for centuries.

[tonyXIII]

50 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

This is entirely true and one of the reasons why English grammar is so badly understood - it's also why we have some (not all) spellings of words that are entirely wrong. The removal of Germanic grammar and the shoehorning in of Latin grammar and French spelling - the Yanks are correct with color, we are wrong with colour - meant that teaching was wrong for centuries.

I have to take issue with your "entirely wrong". British English spelling is different to American English spelling, but to say that one is correct and the other wrong is, er, wrong. They are different, that's all. One may be more logical, perhaps, but that doesn't make the other 'wrong'. The two main exam boards (Cambridge and Michigan) accept both British English and American English spellings but expect examinees to be consistent in their usage.

Languages change all the time. They evolve. They are, in a way, 'organic'. You can't fight it, you have to accept it, as the Academie Francaise found when it tried to prevent the use of 'le weekend', for example.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

I have to take issue with your "entirely wrong". British English spelling is different to American English spelling, but to say that one is correct and the other wrong is, er, wrong. They are different, that's all. One may be more logical, perhaps, but that doesn't make the other 'wrong'. The two main exam boards (Cambridge and Michigan) accept both British English and American English spellings but expect examinees to be consistent in their usage.

Languages change all the time. They evolve. They are, in a way, 'organic'. You can't fight it, you have to accept it, as the Academie Francaise found when it tried to prevent the use of 'le weekend', for example.

Yes - I put wrong as a provocation. There is no need for the 'u' in colour, harbour etc. American spellings usually have more relation to how words are actually pronounced which is one of the key uses of spelling words.

[The Rocket]

On 01/06/2023 at 07:08, RayCee said:

Do you do the maths or do the math? I personally do the maths but notice the other way is gaining in popularity in NZ.

It`s one of the great ironies to me that just as the American century appears to be drawing to a close we are to be hearing more than Americanisms than ever creeping into the vernacular. 

The use of "off of" instead of just `off` is another gaining traction that I loathe, `math` instead of `maths` another. Truth is people are easily impressed.

[corvusxiii]

2 hours ago, tonyXIII said:

The difference between formal and informal English only became apparent to me when I began teaching English to my students here in Greece. Imagine how hard it must be not just to learn English, but to learn when and how to use formal/informal language. I am blown away by how good some of them are. If you want the top EFL certificate (Proficiency in English), you have to get the register (degree of formality) spot on as well as the grammar and vocabulary.

I remember this Portuguese Language assistant/teacher, she was working at the same school as Spouse.

At Uni she learnt 'My Mother'(think BBC), in North Featherstone she heard 'Mi Mam'.

You could sense the shock and horror of her first few weeks 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

It`s one of the great ironies to me that just as the American century appears to be drawing to a close we are to be hearing more than Americanisms than ever creeping into the vernacular. 

The use of "off of" instead of just `off` is another gaining traction that I loathe, `math` instead of `maths` another. Truth is people are easily impressed.

I like Milton Jones' take on this (it is about 5.10 in):

 

[unapologetic pedant]

On 31/05/2023 at 10:40, Futtocks said:

One that grates for many musicians is the use, common in journalism/broadcasting, of "building to a crescendo".

"Building to a crescendo" is a tautology, like "speeding up to an acceleration".

There's no single-word alternative that fully captures the intended import of the misuse of "crescendo". Best I can come up with is "cacophonous climax". 

The word "blatant" means "obtrusively loud and noisy", but is now just taken to be a synonym of "clear and obvious". As in "blatant forward pass" or "blatant knock-on". Nothing "obtrusively loud and noisy" about either of these breaches of RL rules until opposition fans get involved.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 31/05/2023 at 22:08, RayCee said:

Do you do the maths or do the math? I personally do the maths but notice the other way is gaining in popularity in NZ.

Maths is an abbreviation of mathematics. Just as comms is an abbreviation of communications. Math makes no sense.

Most people say "math" or "maths" when all they mean is the branch of mathematics called arithmetic.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 03/06/2023 at 09:36, Damien said:

For me there is a huge difference between spoken and written grammar and the way I write is quite different to the way I speak. My writing is much more grammatically correct (insert joke of your choice about my posts here) 

Should be "different from", not "different to".

[DI Keith Fowler]

Unapologetic pedant how on earth did you miss this thread first time round, did the batsignal not go up?

[gingerjon]

40 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Should be "different from", not "different to".

Both are fine.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 02/06/2023 at 08:18, tonyXIII said:

I could list dozens of common 'mistakes', but they are largely trivial. Some are even due to dialects  for example, "I were talking to Bill yesterday." It should, of course, be "I was talking to Bill yesterday." 

"I was talking to Bill yesterday", "We were talking to Bill yesterday".

However, "If I were talking to Bill yesterday", "If we were talking to Bill yesterday" are correct. Whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural makes no difference in the conditional tense.

I posted some of my pet hates in a previous grammar thread. One that bears repeating, because like the conditional tense it's an error continually fallen into by some of the supposedly best educated, is the distinction between "who" and "whom".

"Who" is a subject pronoun. "Whom" is an object pronoun. Singular or plural has no bearing on either.

In the question "Who did what to whom" both the "who" can be singular or plural and the "whom" can be singular or plural.

"Who did what to who" is incorrect even when it refers to an individual performing an action on another individual.

When "Whom" is the object of other prepositions, such as "by whom", "of whom", "from whom", "for whom" etc, the "whom" referred to can be singular or plural.

Example - "Who ate all the pies". Let's assume a single glutton in the dock. 

Rephrase the question - "By whom were all the pies eaten". Same action, still a single glutton.

[unapologetic pedant]

32 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Both are fine.

According to whom?

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

According to whom?

Cambridge. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/different-from-different-to-or-different-than

 

[unapologetic pedant]

50 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

Unapologetic pedant how on earth did you miss this thread first time round, did the batsignal not go up?

It's a losing battle. Ennui has set in. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

6 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

It's a losing battle. Ennui has set in. 

Don't apologise. 

[unapologetic pedant]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Cambridge. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/different-from-different-to-or-different-than

 

Quote - "When we compare two or more items, it is usually followed by "from". We also use "different to", especially in speaking".

The "We also use" is a dead giveaway. Translates as "We no longer care whether usage is correct or incorrect. Anything goes. If it feels right, it is right. We just want to be liked". Modern academics are more like social workers than grammarians. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Quote - "When we compare two or more items, it is usually followed by "from". We also use "different to", especially in speaking".

The "We also use" is a dead giveaway. Translates as "We no longer care whether usage is correct or incorrect. Anything goes. If it feels right, it is right. We just want to be liked". Modern academics are more like social workers than grammarians. 

Grammar adapts and changes, or else English would still have genders, the letter thorn, and distinctions between thou and you.

Either way, your reading is wrong. There is no English Academy. But folk like the Cambridge dictionary (they're the ones who insisted that -ize was right not -ise for years so not always the best guide) are about as close as we get. And they say it's fine. And, despite looking for upwards of ten minutes, I couldn't find anyone to disagree with them.

So, I'll go with "both are fine".

[unapologetic pedant]

40 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Either way, your reading is wrong. There is no English Academy. 

So here we have an ex cathedra assertion that someone is objectively "wrong" made as part of an argument that right and wrong are subjective and no reliable authority exists.

Perhaps there is an English Academy and you are its pope?

39 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But folk like the Cambridge dictionary (they're the ones who insisted that -ize was right not -ise for years so not always the best guide) are about as close as we get. And they say it's fine. And, despite looking for upwards of ten minutes, I couldn't find anyone to disagree with them.

In the 1990s the English language establishment substituted what they called a "prescriptive" approach to grammar with a "descriptive" approach. Textbooks were purged. Most online material is derived from those new sources. That's why you can't find anyone prepared to uphold traditional standards.

No surprise that you're on board with philological iconoclasm. Matches your politics and guessing its in line with your views on theology. You must be an adherent of Archbishop Welby's Post-Anglican Church of Wokeology.

[tonyXIII]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

"I was talking to Bill yesterday", "We were talking to Bill yesterday".

However, "If I were talking to Bill yesterday", "If we were talking to Bill yesterday" are correct. Whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural makes no difference in the conditional tense.

I posted some of my pet hates in a previous grammar thread. One that bears repeating, because like the conditional tense it's an error continually fallen into by some of the supposedly best educated, is the distinction between "who" and "whom".

"Who" is a subject pronoun. "Whom" is an object pronoun. Singular or plural has no bearing on either.

In the question "Who did what to whom" both the "who" can be singular or plural and the "whom" can be singular or plural.

"Who did what to who" is incorrect even when it refers to an individual performing an action on another individual.

When "Whom" is the object of other prepositions, such as "by whom", "of whom", "from whom", "for whom" etc, the "whom" referred to can be singular or plural.

Example - "Who ate all the pies". Let's assume a single glutton in the dock. 

Rephrase the question - "By whom were all the pies eaten". Same action, still a single glutton.

I was not referring to the conditional use of "I were walking", but to the dialect use in Lancashire and Yorkshire (and possibly elsewhere) of "were" instead of "was".

There is no "conditional tense". The confitional is a grammatical construct and can use many tenses depending on whether it is zeroth, first, second or third conditional. I'll be happy to give examples when I am at my laptop instead of this infernal smartphone.

[unapologetic pedant]

32 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

I was not referring to the conditional use of "I were walking", but to the dialect use in Lancashire and Yorkshire (and possibly elsewhere) of "were" instead of "was".

Perfectly aware of that. Your post merely prompted a thought about the conditional tense. 

Variations in accent, pronunciation, and vocabulary are to be valued. Particularly when linked to place. However, I'll take some persuading that incorrect basic grammar deserves to be characterized as "dialect". 

47 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

There is no "conditional tense". The confitional is a grammatical construct and can use many tenses depending on whether it is zeroth, first, second or third conditional. I'll be happy to give examples when I am at my laptop instead of this infernal smartphone.

For the purposes of this forum, I'm content with the demotic term "conditional tense". Hardly likely to delve into the minutiae of conditionals just to make a simple point about the use of "were" rather than "was".

Anyhow, I await further enlightenment.

[tonyXIII]

Further enlightenment, Grasshopper. (readers under the age of 50 may not get the reference to Kung Fu)

Zero Conditional: if/when + present -> present : if he eats peanuts, he has an allergic reaction.

First Conditional: if + present -> will/modal + bare infinitive : if I see Helen, I'll tell her you called.

Second Conditional: if + past -> would/modal + bare infinitive : if I spoke Greek, I would apply for that job.

Third Conditional: if + past perfect -> would have/modal perfect + past participle : if the tickets had been cheaper, I would have bought one.

Of course, this is a bit prescriptive but there are variations on this theme. For instance, Mixed Conditionals.

Your comments are not wrong, but when you call yourself a pedant, you must expect some scrutiny. Grammar is a slippery beast because you can always find examples which disprove your belief. The main difficulty is in the spoken word, where almost anything goes nowadays.

Enjoy your evening.

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, tonyXIII said:

Further enlightenment, Grasshopper. (readers under the age of 50 may not get the reference to Kung Fu)

Zero Conditional: if/when + present -> present : if he eats peanuts, he has an allergic reaction.

First Conditional: if + present -> will/modal + bare infinitive : if I see Helen, I'll tell her you called.

Second Conditional: if + past -> would/modal + bare infinitive : if I spoke Greek, I would apply for that job.

Third Conditional: if + past perfect -> would have/modal perfect + past participle : if the tickets had been cheaper, I would have bought one.

Of course, this is a bit prescriptive but there are variations on this theme. For instance, Mixed Conditionals.

Your comments are not wrong, but when you call yourself a pedant, you must expect some scrutiny. Grammar is a slippery beast because you can always find examples which disprove your belief. The main difficulty is in the spoken word, where almost anything goes nowadays.

Enjoy your evening.

You were doing so well until “nowadays”.

Go read your Hardy (for example) to find examples of someone trying to capture non standard dialect forms that use grammar that would never have been taught in a school.

[tonyXIII]

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

You were doing so well until “nowadays”.

Go read your Hardy (for example) to find examples of someone trying to capture non standard dialect forms that use grammar that would never have been taught in a school.

'Twas always thus. Thank you.