common grammatical errors

weatherguy

I have noticed many estate agents don't understand the meaning of the word 'comprise'.
In describing a property they say: property x comprises of five bedrooms etc
Instead as I understand it, they should say: property x comprises five bedrooms.

And another word misused by many people is the word: 'adage'
Adage itself includes old.
So you often hear people say: The 'old' adage. Instead of saying: The adage.

Another phrase I would take issue with is often used by journalists:
"Mr ..... will fly into Dublin this evening for talks with ..."

Well, if that is taken literally, Mr ... must have been involved in an awful plane crash. Because if he flies, presumably by plane, into Dublin the plane must have struck a building at such speed to cause fatalities.

Surely, the correct grammar should be: Mr ....will arrive in Dublin this evening for talks with....??

Any comments on the above?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mathepac

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would it safe to say that context is everything?

The terminology of the arrival and departure of aeroplanes at or from airports has its origins with ships, which sailed into ports, harbours or even troubled waters at times.

Thus to state that "The fishing vessel sailed into Howth harbour or Dublin port" is gramatically and technically correct. The aeronautical equivalent would be "The aeroplane flew into Dublin airport" which over time gets contracted to "The aeroplane flew into Dublin", which I submit is both gramatically and technically correct in context.

pickarooney

weatherguy wrote: »

I have noticed many estate agents don't understand the meaning of the word 'comprise'.
In describing a property they say: property x comprises of five bedrooms etc
Instead as I understand it, they should say: property x comprises five bedrooms.

It's a mix-up between "comprises" and "is comprised of" which essentially mean the same thing. The above use is consitent with estate agents' general use of words which mean something completely different to what the general public understands.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

trad

there, their they're, they will get it rite eventually

weatherguy

mathepac wrote: »

Would it safe to say that context is everything?

The terminology of the arrival and departure of aeroplanes at or from airports has its origins with ships, which sailed into ports, harbours or even troubled waters at times.

Thus to state that "The fishing vessel sailed into Howth harbour or Dublin port" is gramatically and technically correct. The aeronautical equivalent would be "The aeroplane flew into Dublin airport" which over time gets contracted to "The aeroplane flew into Dublin", which I submit is both gramatically and technically correct in context.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but if a ship sails into Howth Harbour or Dublin Port, it surely strikes the harbour walls?
So, I should say that Mr X flew in to Dublin airport, rather than 'into'?
Very hard to understand the difference when script is being read by a newsreader.

mathepac

weatherguy wrote: »

I don't mean to be pedantic, but if a ship sails into Howth Harbour or Dublin Port, it surely strikes the harbour walls?
So, I should say that Mr X flew in to Dublin airport, rather than 'into'? ...

Not IMO. A harbour, in nautical terms, is a safe place where sea-going vessels are protected from storms and heavy seas.

By its nature a harbour has protective defenses that encircle calm waters and the vessels therein, therefore the captain sails his vessel into the harbour. He may subsequently strike the port walls with his vessel, but first he sails into the haven of the harbour. (A harbour may contain one or more ports).

FlutterinBantam

The harbour is the water area surrounded by what ever means is protecting it.

Thus if a sailor sailed into Howth harbour, by default would mean he/she did not sail into the outer wall.

The harbour wall and the harbour are two different things.

MathsManiac

By a similar logic, can we not say that Dublin is a reasonably well defined area with buildings, open spaces, fresh(ish) air, runways, etc. If you went from outside that area to inside it, by plane, is it not reasonable to say that you flew into Dublin?

pickarooney

MathsManiac wrote: »

By a similar logic, can we not say that Dublin is a reasonably well defined area with buildings, open spaces, fresh(ish) air, runways, etc. If you went from outside that area to inside it, by plane, is it not reasonable to say that you flew into Dublin?

Of course you can; to argue otherwise would be to confuse pedantry with willful obtuseness. IMO.

looksee

wilful...

pickarooney

looksee wrote: »

wilful...

Also acceptable.

Dunjohn

pickarooney wrote: »

Also acceptable.

In a myriad of ways.

The Raven.

Oxford, Chambers, and Collins say ‘wilful’. Cambridge also says ‘wilful’, though Americans usually say ‘willful’. I therefore will wilfully go with ‘wilful’.