Campaign for 'proper' English

Just goes to show that we all make mistakes. I guess some of us care about it, and some don't.
 
Am I the only one who's spotted the number of grammatical errors so far in this thread? The irony of it !!! :lol:

TBH it really doesn't bother me that much in a forum context. What does annoy me is when you see those sort of mistakes on signs or printed on the sides of vehicles. You would have thought that a basic knowledge of grammar was a pre-requisite for a sign-writer . . . and even if a client submitted a request with grammatical errors in it that they'd point it out and correct it :shrug:

One word that does really annoy me is "furore".
No particular reason, but I have a colleague who uses it at every available opportunity. Who the hell uses the word "furore" in everyday language???

And never mind the Americanisation of the English language. It's now being "Indianised". Last week I was introduced to the word "prepone" (i.e. the opposite of postpone) by one of our offshore operators. Apparently it's even made it into the latest edition of the OED :nuts:
 
Last edited:
cyclamens said:
The English language is a conglomeration of many tongues and base regional dialects.
As others have said it is evolving constantly - in 100 years, perhaps, if the world hasn't blown itself to kingdom come, Esperanto could be the most used language in the world:shake:

In answer to your point seashaker I would not wish to be drawn further on my response in fear of actually being referred to in a way hinted at a few posts after the finger waving post. I am not, one of what may have been suggested, I was merely suggesting that particular line might not be followed due to that particular accusation being levelled.:bang:
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I have seen the post in question and find it sad that in this day and age almost anything said is dragged back to this. out of subject and only my opinion but this type or response is madness.

I was meerly adding to the thread what words annoy me. And for anyone who may want to drag it into anything it is not I responded to the thread after getting fustrated after a phonecall I received so cannot see how this could be deemed anyhting other than improper english.
 
seashaker said:
I understand what you are saying. I have seen the post in question and find it sad that in this day and age almost anything said is dragged back to this. out of subject and only my opinion but this type or response is madness.

I was meerly adding to the thread what words annoy me. And for anyone who may want to drag it into anything it is not I responded to the thread after getting fustrated after a phonecall I received so cannot see how this could be deemed anyhting other than improper english.
Click to expand...

I agree:thumbs:
 
I have just been reminded of another one of my pet hates - "least worst". It is "least bad".

As for people saying there is no such thing as proper English - if that were the case, how would it be possible to have English Language exams?
 
I spotted this one today. Not a very common one, as far as I know.

IMAG0118_edit0.jpg
 
Oggy said:
I have just been reminded of another one of my pet hates - "least worst". It is "least bad".

As for people saying there is no such thing as proper English - if that were the case, how would it be possible to have English Language exams?
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone's said that? There is standard English - what you would call 'proper' English, and non-standard English.
 
None of the above examples really get my goat, though I might take the opportunity to pretend that they do now and again. In the old days these kinds of mistake would give you a clue as to the level of a person's education, but these days it's not so clear-cut.

There is one grammatical error that doesn't particularly bother me but it does make me laugh out loud. It's called the 'dangling participle' (a.k.a. 'dangling modifier') though in school we used to call it the 'howler'. A made up example:

"Being a connoisseur of good wine, France is on my list of places to visit."

In case anyone's not sure why this is grammatically "wrong", I'll explain. When you have a leading sub-clause (the bit before the ,comma,) in which the subject of the sentence is omitted, the actual subject is presumed to be the same as the subject of the main clause. OK, I'll say that another way: 'France' is the subject of the main clause (the bit after the comma), so it should also be the subject of the leading sub-clause. In other words, logically, the entire sentence is claiming that France is a connoisseur of good wine.

Now you all know, you'll be sure to avoid this mistake at all times in the future. :lol: No you won't! Even the BBC does it...

Oh, and earlier today I saw this comment on a photo: "lmao - literally" :lol::lol::lol:
 
Proper, Standard - whatever you want to call it.
 
Last edited:
garryknight said:
None of the above examples really get my goat, though I might take the opportunity to pretend that they do now and again. In the old days these kinds of mistake would give you a clue as to the level of a person's education, but these days it's not so clear-cut.

There is one grammatical error that doesn't particularly bother me but it does make me laugh out loud. It's called the 'dangling participle' (a.k.a. 'dangling modifier') though in school we used to call it the 'howler'. A made up example:

"Being a connoisseur of good wine, France is on my list of places to visit."

In case anyone's not sure why this is grammatically "wrong", I'll explain. When you have a leading sub-clause (the bit before the ,comma,) in which the subject of the sentence is omitted, the actual subject is presumed to be the same as the subject of the main clause. OK, I'll say that another way: 'France' is the subject of the main clause (the bit after the comma), so it should also be the subject of the leading sub-clause. In other words, logically, the entire sentence is claiming that France is a connoisseur of good wine.

Now you all know, you'll be sure to avoid this mistake at all times in the future. :lol: No you won't! Even the BBC does it...

Oh, and earlier today I saw this comment on a photo: "lmao - literally" :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up........... :gag:
 
I don't suppose it will be long before we see this sort of thing in an English Literature exam answer.

"2 b or nt 2 b dat iz da kweschun" - hamlt bi wil shakspeer
 
big soft moose said:
back on the original subject in the local press this week

" The building was partly raised to the ground" Argggghhh :bang: :bang:
a) It's razed not raised, and

b) you can't be partly razed to the ground - the like being partly pregnant - it was either razed or it wasnt Grrr[/meldrew]
Click to expand...

I disagree. Part of a building can be razed to the ground, it doesn't have to be the whole thing. Unless you interpret it as the part that was burnt, never actually made it to the ground.
 
Partially razed would suggest that some of the building remained unscathed, razed to the ground would suggest total carnage.

Not sure how razed to the ground makes any sense, the whole 'to the ground' is extraneous given the definition of 'to completely destroy' (Would anything ever be razed to the sky?).

Logically, partly or partially razed also don't make sense either as you cannot partly or partially completely destroy something.

Just saying.......;)
 
garryknight said:
None of the above examples really get my goat, though I might take the opportunity to pretend that they do now and again. In the old days these kinds of mistake would give you a clue as to the level of a person's education, but these days it's not so clear-cut.

There is one grammatical error that doesn't particularly bother me but it does make me laugh out loud. It's called the 'dangling participle' (a.k.a. 'dangling modifier') though in school we used to call it the 'howler'. A made up example:

"Being a connoisseur of good wine, France is on my list of places to visit."

In case anyone's not sure why this is grammatically "wrong", I'll explain. When you have a leading sub-clause (the bit before the ,comma,) in which the subject of the sentence is omitted, the actual subject is presumed to be the same as the subject of the main clause. OK, I'll say that another way: 'France' is the subject of the main clause (the bit after the comma), so it should also be the subject of the leading sub-clause. In other words, logically, the entire sentence is claiming that France is a connoisseur of good wine.

Now you all know, you'll be sure to avoid this mistake at all times in the future. :lol: No you won't! Even the BBC does it...

Oh, and earlier today I saw this comment on a photo: "lmao - literally" :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Am I right in thinkng then if it was rephrased as "Being a connoisseur of good wine, I would like to visit France."

That would be right?

Just interested as this is new to me, but makes sense now you've explained it!
 
In the paper the other day it mentioned a "badly injured suicide bomber" only partially dead then?
 
that's got to be one of the biggest contradictions ever... when people spell professional wrong.

i know someone who called their business 'Chauffers'...

i said.. you don't spell chauffeurs like that.. he said.. oh yeah, i know... i thought people would remember it easier when it was spelt like that.

I give up.
 
yoby said:
Partially razed would suggest that some of the building remained unscathed, razed to the ground would suggest total carnage.

Not sure how razed to the ground makes any sense, the whole 'to the ground' is extraneous given the definition of 'to completely destroy' (Would anything ever be razed to the sky?).

Logically, partly or partially razed also don't make sense either as you cannot partly or partially completely destroy something.

Just saying.......;)
Click to expand...
Razed does not necessarily mean completely destroyed, it also means destroyed to ground level. As it is possible for part of a building to be destroyed to ground level, it can be said that part of a building was razed to the ground. What confuses the matter is putting the emphasis on "part" with razed instead of building.
 
Another one that gets my goat is people using 'was' instead of 'were' - "there was five of them" or an apostophy 's' in relation to more than one person/item - "there's five of them"
 
I personally HATE with a passion, the way Scott Mills has made his own irritating language, such as "Tom off of India" he uses the off of instead of from. I know I should just switch off but I do like the music!
Also, when people spell of as "off", that's really annoying.
 
Have we had: people using "loose" instead of "lose", that seems to be every bloody where! AAARGH!:bang:**** .

And the already mentioned "shouldn't of", "wouldn't of"s :bang:

Starting sentences with and. :bang:

Mod edit: Please don't bypass the swear filter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been referred to as a "looser" more than once in a forum when someone objected to my stance on something. To be honest, how they could possibly know I use Immodium puzzles me to this day...
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Am I right in thinkng then if it was rephrased as "Being a connoisseur of good wine, I would like to visit France."

That would be right?

Just interested as this is new to me, but makes sense now you've explained it!
Click to expand...

Yes.

DorsetDude said:
Starting sentences with and. :bang:
Click to expand...

Aha!!!
One of my pet hates - People insisting that sentences shouldn't be started with "and" or "but";)
Depending on the context it's perfectly acceptable. :p
 
DorsetDude said:
Have we had: people using "loose" instead of "lose", that seems to be every bloody where! AAARGH!:bang:**** .

And the already mentioned "shouldn't of", "wouldn't of"s :bang:

Starting sentences with and. :bang:

Mod edit: Please don't bypass the swear filter.
Click to expand...

People who bypass the swear filter! ;)
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Am I right in thinkng then if it was rephrased as "Being a connoisseur of good wine, I would like to visit France."

That would be right?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the subject of the whole sentence, "I", is now the subject of the initial clause as well. If you were to phrase it as "I, being a connoisseur of good wine, would like to visit France", you'd avoid the "howler" trap, but you'd end up sounding like Patrick Stewart... :)

DorsetDude said:
Starting sentences with and. :bang:
Click to expand...

You dislike this? And me. But really I don't. I think it's useful on some occasions.

Oh, and one more, everybody: it's "bored with", not "bored of".
 
garryknight said:
You dislike this? And me. But really I don't. I think it's useful on some occasions.
Click to expand...
No I dont really mind that one. just threw it in as I noticed Id started my sentence preceding with 'and'.

People who end sentences with 'and' though, grrrrrr ;)

footnote: are we really not allowed to swear? Are we not all over 18 in here then?
 
DorsetDude said:
No I dont really mind that one. just threw it in as I noticed Id started my sentence preceding with 'and'.

People who end sentences with 'and' though, grrrrrr ;)

footnote: are we really not allowed to swear? Are we not all over 18 in here then?
Click to expand...

Erm, no, we're not. We have members as young as 8 here.
 
And? and But? are both questions which can end sentences.
 
garryknight said:
I've heard a few people ending a sentence with 'but'. It seems to be a regional thing in this country though I've heard an Australian do it, too.
Click to expand...

That's a Glasgow thing I think but :D
 
neil_g said:
language evolves. people used to speak along the lines of "one haveth a most ghastly grammar" etc. so im sure they said the same thing when people started talking differently.
Click to expand...

Can you write that with a lisp?
 
DorsetDude said:
Can they access the Nude and Glamour section?!
Click to expand...

No they can not, my daughter is a junior member and she cannt see it. Although personnally I can not see the issue if they could, they are bombarded (sp) with far more sexual images everyday in music videos and magazines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top