Most hated grammatical error [Merged]

Hellm0

Hellm0 wrote: »

Arguably, Human use of language (in a modern sense) has existed for at the least 40,000 years. There are currently around 6000 languages spoken on our planet.

Would you have us all speak the same one? Are all variations and changes to be considered "deterioration"? Who are you to be the judge?

I agree that in technical or documentation and even other circumstances good grammar is a must however, why go through the effort of correcting peoples posts on an internet messaging site? That's really just being anti social and a complete snob to be honest.

I don't think people really do pick up others on their post's (?) I know I wouldn't , it still bugs me when people get little things wrong but I would never point it out unless it was relevant - like if someone slagged off someones spelling but they had misspelled in their post - but in general terms, no, why would anyone do that?? I think that was the point of this thread, to allow people to rant!!!

Sam Vimes

hullaballú wrote: »

Yes, but 'none' = 'not one'. Thus, 'not one [of these children] is wearing shoes'.

bwahahahahaha. Got there first this time :pac:

tolosenc

'Zackleh.

None = not one.

Make this substitution to see which one is correct.

javaboy

We can argue about the grammatical rights and wrongs of the sentence 'til the cows come home. The more important question is why the children have no shoes in the first place. I remember a certain poster had a fascination for collecting children's shoes.

If we can just get the shoes back then we won't have to worry about whether the first past present indicative particible posessive pronoun of having no shoes is correct or not.

MizzLolly

javaboy wrote: »

We can argue about the grammatical rights and wrongs of the sentence 'til the cows come home. The more important question is why the children have no shoes in the first place. I remember a certain poster had a fascination for collecting children's shoes.

If we can just get the shoes back then we won't have to worry about whether the first past present indicative particible posessive pronoun of having no shoes is correct or not.

Hahaha you're fricken deadly!!

P.C.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

here's an example from the wiki which is, as we all know, the last bastion of truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_These_Candidates



Candidates is plural but it has "is" after it anyway.

An equivalent sentence would be "Not one of them is a voting option"

You wouldn't say "one of them are a voting option"

Option = singular
is = singular

The 'is' in that sentence is refering to/being used with 'option', and not 'candidates'. That is why it is singular.

Would you say - the children is going to school, or - the children are going to school?

We say - today the children are playing rugby, which is fun to watch.
We don't say - today the children is playing rugby which are fun to watch.

Hellm0

P.C. wrote: »

We say - today the children are playing rugby, which is fun to watch.
We don't say - today the children is playing rugby which are fun to watch.

Speak for yourself! It are fun to speak like this.

Sam Vimes

P.C. wrote: »

Option = singular
is = singular

The 'is' in that sentence is refering to/being used with 'option', and not 'candidates'. That is why it is singular.

no it's not.

P.C. wrote: »

We say - today the children are playing rugby, which is fun to watch.
We don't say - today the children is playing rugby which are fun to watch.

no we don't, you're absolutely right. But that sentence is different to the one in the OP.

we say - one of the children is playing rubgy
we don't say - one of the children are playing rugby

by the same token:

we say -not one of the children is playing rubgy
we don't say - not one of the children are playing rugby

and of course "not one" can be shortened to "none" so:

we say - None of the children is playing rubgy
we don't say - None of the children are playing rugby

Sam Vimes

children is plural but the word "none" is referring to one of them, therefore the singular "is"

P.C.

hullaballú wrote: »

Yes, but 'none' = 'not one'. Thus, 'not one [of these children] is wearing shoes'.

Correct

one = singular
is = singular

Not one of these children is wearing shoes.

But:

The children are not wearing shoes - would be an easier sentence to construct, say and understand.

You can say 'one half of one percent', or you could just say 'half a percent' - both are correct, but one is easier.

Sam Vimes

P.C. wrote: »

Correct

one = singular
is = singular

Not one of these children is wearing shoes.

But:

The children are not wearing shoes - would be an easier sentence to construct, say and understand.

You can say 'one half of one percent', or you could just say 'half a percent' - both are correct, but one is easier.

i'm confused. are you now saying that "none of these children is" is correct but that a different way of saying it would be better?

Splendour

Haven't time to read through the whole thread, but I reckon we could do with a reference copy of 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' on Boards.ie...

P.C.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm confused. are you now saying that "none of these children is" is correct but that a different way of saying it would be better?

I never said it was not correct, but, yes, I am saying that a different way of saying it is easier.

It is up to you to decided if it is better or not.

Sam Vimes

P.C. wrote: »

I never said it was not correct, but, yes, I am saying that a different way of saying it is easier.

It is up to you to decided if it is better or not.

right so

emeraldstar

P.C. wrote: »

Correct

one = singular
is = singular

Not one of these children is wearing shoes.

But:

The children are not wearing shoes - would be an easier sentence to construct, say and understand.

You can say 'one half of one percent', or you could just say 'half a percent' - both are correct, but one is easier.

Oh too funny!

emeraldstar

Hellm0 wrote: »

Arguably, Human use of language (in a modern sense) has existed for at the least 40,000 years. There are currently around 6000 languages spoken on our planet.

Would you have us all speak the same one? Are all variations and changes to be considered "deterioration"? Who are you to be the judge?

I agree that in technical or documentation and even other circumstances good grammar is a must however, why go through the effort of correcting peoples posts on an internet messaging site? That's really just being anti social and a complete snob to be honest.

Not at all. Just that whichever one you do speak you speak properly

mandysmithers

obl wrote: »

Thank you. Not that I learned anything, just nice to know that not everyone sees the necessity to hyper-correct himself.

Are you insinuating that I'm a hyper-correcting pedant.....did you actually read your own post?

tolosenc

No, I said quite the opposite.

Alun

javaboy wrote: »

A lot of people seem to be under the illusion that the English language was found fully formed behind a radiator at what is now the offices of the Oxford English dictionary. It is not immutable. It has evolved over time and is still evolving.

In a way, yes. However, consider what evolution actually is in nature. It's the selection of random mutations in organisms by a process that favours the ones that actually give the organism an advantage.

The same should hold true for language, and those random mutations that are, in fact, nothing but mistakes made by people incapable of understanding a few simple rules should rightly die out, and only the ones that result in a real simplification of the language should survive.

How society decides what mutations die out and which survive is the question, I suppose.

javaboy

Alun wrote: »

In a way, yes. However, consider what evolution actually is in nature. It's the selection of random mutations in organisms by a process that favours the ones that actually give the organism an advantage.

The same should hold true for language, and those random mutations that are, in fact, nothing but mistakes made by people incapable of understanding a few simple rules should rightly die out, and only the ones that result in a real simplification of the language should survive.

How society decides what mutations die out and which survive is the question, I suppose.

Hey I'm not saying we should let spelling mistakes become the order of the day but when I hear people scoffing at someone breaking one of the more arbitrary rules such as placing a comma after a conjunction, it irritates me more than the errors themselves. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't strive to use correct grammar, punctuation and spelling but if five hundred years ago everybody had carried on the way grammar nazis do today, we would haveth a language that wouldeth pain the arse greatly I fear.

stovelid

It's often just a matter of manners. We're posting informally on an internet forum; we're not writing technical documentation, newspaper, or academic articles.

I do a good deal of writing for my job, and I would consider my grammar to be OK. I still, however, make mistakes. Why bother trying to humiliate somebody unless they are text-speaking, or being a dickhead? If you can read the post, let it be. If I see a second or third post (in a thread) that says nothing except to smugly point out a grammatical error in an otherwise well-meant OP, I just think Twat. Same for the people that thank it.

There can often a sly class prejudice at work too. Access to boards is not limited to people who attained a certain standard of education. Not everybody has the basic writing skills that many of us take for granted.

Mr. Presentable

mazcon wrote: »

Potatoe and tomatoe.

Neither is a grammatical error. Both are spelling errors.

javaboy

nipplenuts wrote: »

Neither is a grammatical error. Both are spelling errors.

Ah but then "Tomatoe and potatoe." is a sentence fragment. Maybe the additional "e"s were merely misdirection.

RoosterIllusion

Without a doubt: "I would OF" instead of I would HAVE"

It's HAVE, not OF you ****ing idiots!



That being said, I used to say "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes". Though I knew it was intents and purposes, I ways spoke it as intensive purposes. Hrmm.

Also: putting a comma in a sentence combined with "and". Example being: "Barry, myself and john" whereas some people say "Barry, myself, and John".

Starting a sentence with But or And is also something I don't do.

Definitely the crowning achievement would have to be the €3.00 Beamish in Callanans pub in Cork city, I mean €3.00 for a pint of Beamish that is better than Beamish I've had in the brewery definitely says a lot.

dlofnep

Dis tred is stewpid. lollolol

amirite?

Correcting grammar on the internet, is like... Well, I don't have a suitable comparison.. But it's just as annoying as those who write in text-speek.

dh2007

tech77 wrote: »

That has to be THE most annoying grammatical error.
Simply because no grammar mistake comes so loaded with that odious combination of ignorance and pomposity.

Most grammar mistakes are uncontrived whereas that one is anything but and makes the user sound like a pretentious fool.
Makes me shudder every time i hear it.

I was once corrected for saying, "That belongs to me and John" (I know technically it should be John and me), but the retard who was correcting me was trying to tell me that I should have said, "I bought a drink for John & I". When I told him he was incorrect he was having none of it. It's just so bloody infuriating!! :mad:

What also annoys me is when people use 'Myself and John are going to the shops'. Would you say, 'Myself is going to the shops'? No! so don't use it then thickos. Why do people have such a strange aversion to using 'John and I are going to the shops' in this country?

I think it's because people think they will sound too posh if they use it.

Honey-ec

I think I've used my daily quota of thanks just catching up on this thread.

As for the dyslexic comment - I have a friend who is severely dyslexic and she has said over and over again that the inability or unwillingless of people to use half-decent grammar and punctuation only makes life even more difficult for her.

Now, back to the topic: data/datum. I don't think I've ever seen "data" treated as a plural.

Smart Bug

Honey-ec wrote: »

Now, back to the topic: data/datum. I don't think I've ever seen "data" treated as a plural.

Data is a plural noun, a collection of facts or statistics. Datum is one item, i.e. a point of reference. Use of datums to refer to a collection of facts or statistics is also correct.

Smart Bug

Also fishes is a correct term for use of describing several fishes of different species. Fish is a collection of fish of one species.


Just thought I'd add that because fishes is one of my favourite words. Fishes. I like fishes.

dh2007

Smart Bug wrote: »

Also fishes is a correct term for use of describing several fishes of different species. Fish is a collection of fish of one species.


Just thought I'd add that because fishes is one of my favourite words. Fishes. I like fishes.

Like the 'loaves and the fishes' parable in the Bible.

not technically a grammatical error, but why on earth are some people addicted to using ellipses all the time?? And do people not know there are only supposed to be three 'dot dot dots', not two, not four but THREE...