Is grammar/spelling going down the drain?

riaganach

born2bwild wrote: »

I disagree: I've begun using boards less and less because of the posters' generally poor standard of spelling, punctuation and grammar; I'd never point it out to a poster because it's rude to do so but every time I read "your" instead of "you're" or would "of" done (or "would of went"), for example, I know I'm in the wrong place.

:rolleyes:

"I disapprove of what you say (when you don't put the apostrophe in the right place), but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

(Apologies to Voltaire.)

riaganach

bnt wrote: »

Just for fun, you can analyse your (or someone else's) writing using a website such as this one. It returns a readability score (higher is better) and a "grade level", which ought to be equivalent to your school Class. (e.g. US Grade 4 and Irish Class 4 are both for 9-10-year olds.)

I will refrain from further comment at this time.

I tried this:

The cat.

I got this:

Readable Score: 121 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: -4

From now on all my sentences no verbs.

dxhound2005

Omackeral wrote: »

I cannot fathom why people feel the need to put an apostrophe after any plural. My local supermarket has a printed sign which reads "No Trolley's at this till. 'Trollie's' would have been bad enough but using the singular? Ugh!! It melts my brain. Some manager allowed that to be displayed.

Another misuse of apostrophe example was a County Council bin which read "Keep You're Town Tidy". That's inexcusable at that level.

I got in trouble earlier for pulling someone up on it (I was being a smartarse, to be fair) but it does seem like you're almost looked down at for using proper grammar and then also called a Nazi!

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

riaganach

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

Ah for the love of God tonight, I just dropped my phone trying to read that...

bnt

But you don't have to be a "grammar nazi" to be concerned about how things are going. I just made the mistake of reading some of a Garda Recruitment thread: don't Guards have to write reports, and give testimony in court? Then again, I don't get why so many people are fighting and agonizing over Garda jobs, so what do I know ..?

wil

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

Shortened it he could ave.

I was with him up to lang;)

BorneTobyWilde

Savman wrote: »

Your/You're is a grammatical crime against humanity.
Nearly as bad as "should of".

:mad:

I should of compared prices before I rushed into buying a new tv.

So this is wrong?

The King of Moo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I should of compared prices before I rushed into buying a new tv.

So this is wrong?

Yes.
"Should" is a modal verb (basically, one that modifies the meaning of another verb).
"to compare" is your main verb.

After a modal verb, when it refers to the present or future, you use the bare infinitive form of the main verb, which is "compare."
E.g. "You should compare prices before you rush into buying a TV."

When referring to the past (in most cases of using modal verbs) you use the past infinitive form of the main verb (have + past participle) after the modal.
In this case: "have compared."
E.g. "I should have compared prices before I rushed into buying a TV."

When using the past infinitive, some people write "of" instead of "have" because the spoken abbreviated form ("should've," "might've" etc.) makes "'ve" sound like "of."

BorneTobyWilde

You should of course have compared prices. Would be correct use ?
So you can use ''should of ''

Femme_Fatale

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You should of course have compared prices. Would be correct use ?
So you can use ''should of ''

Yeh but that doesn't have the same meaning as "should have".

I think the only time "should of" is correct is the example you gave: "should of course".

Whereas "should have" goes in front of any past participle of a verb: "should have gone", "should have watched", "should have said", "should have seen" etc.

The King of Moo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You should of course have compared prices. Would be correct use ?
So you can use ''should of ''

"Of" in that case is not a preposition dependent upon "should." It's part of the adverbial phrase "of course."
So no, you can't use "should of."

The King of Moo

The King of Moo wrote: »

"Of" in that case is not a preposition dependent upon "should." It's part of the adverbial phrase "of course."
So no, you can't use "should of."

You should, of course, have compared prices.

The above reads fine to me. I vaguely rememeber being taught in primary school that if your sentence still makes sense without the interruptive phrase, it's kosher.

Edit: I just saw you explain that the 'of' was irrelevant to the 'should'. Technically it follows it in spoken language though!

anncoates

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-who-highlight-minor-grammar-points-are-amazing-2013082378916

burnhardlanger

The last one that stands out was from Declan Hartigan on Facebook for TV3 weather.

"Lad's there's a big one on the way. Don't say ye weren't warned now!"

Crass and Unprofessional.

The King of Moo

Omackeral wrote: »

You should, of course, have compared prices.

The above reads fine to me. I vaguely rememeber being taught in primary school that if your sentence still makes sense without the interruptive phrase, it's kosher.

Edit: I just saw you explain that the 'of' was irrelevant to the 'should'. Technically it follows it in spoken language though!

Absolutely, the written sentence is perfect. It's fine in speech too, and I wouldn't even say that clear pauses before "of" and after "course" are important.
But that's assuming the presence of "have" after "of course," which is necessary.

My issue is with people writing "should of" instead of "should have," e.g.
"You should of compared prices first."

The King of Moo

The King of Moo wrote: »

Absolutely, it's fine in speech, and I wouldn't even say that clear pauses before "of" and after "course" are important.
But that's assuming the presence of "have" after "of course," which is necessary.

My issue is with people writing "should of" instead of "should have," e.g.
"You should of compared prices first."

Do you think a lot of grammar is innate in us, for example I recognised " should of" as wrong even thought I could not tell you the rule.

biko

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you think a lot of grammar is innate in us, for example I recognised " should of" as wrong even thought I could not tell you the rule.

I made a post about this a few years back

biko wrote: »

This is one of those errors typically made by a person more familiar with the spoken than the written form of English. A sentence like “I would have gone if anyone had given me free tickets” is normally spoken in a slurred way so that the two words “would have” are not distinctly separated, but blended together into what is properly rendered “would’ve.” Seeing that “V” tips you off right away that “would’ve” is a contraction of “would have.” But many people hear “would of” and that’s how they write it.

6,560 results from boards.ie for "would of"
3,240 results from boards.ie for "could of"
3,590 results from boards.ie for "should of"

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you think a lot of grammar is innate in us, for example I recognised " should of" as wrong even thought I could not tell you the rule.

It is if you do a good bit of reading, I'd say

The King of Moo

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you think a lot of grammar is innate in us, for example I recognised " should of" as wrong even thought I could not tell you the rule.

It effectively is, because we learn it through immersion. Learning the grammar of a second language is tough because you're looking at seemingly abstract rules which are difficult to relate to real speech. Even if a native speaker were to look at a fairly high-level English grammar exercise designed for learners, they'd probably find some questions hard. When you look at English grammar in isolation, it can seem abstract and confusing.

But luckily most of us don't need to do that. If you're surrounded by fairly good grammar when you're young, anything deviating from the norm will instinctively sound wrong, even if you can't explain why (some linguists might also say we naturally perceive the structure underpinning the language and follow it, even if we're not aware of it).
However, we can pick up bad habits too. For example, a lot of Irish people say "used not" or "usen't" as the negative form of "used to." Even though the strictly correct form is "didn't use to," that sounds wrong to then because "used not" got planted in their heads as children, and it's hard to shake what you learn as a young child.

Reading helps a lot too, as a lot of grammar errors are due to the fact that we learn our native tongue mostly from listening. "Should of" is a perfect example of this. We hear people say "should've," and if we don't see that or "should have" written down from time to time, we can mishear it as "should of."

doolox

These have changed through the ages. I recall a discussion on this where it was pointed out that historical figures, like Lewis and Clarke wer not great at spelling but it did not get in the way of their reports and diaries in the exporation of the American west in the early 1800's. Several american presidents were bad spellers, such as Andrew Jackson and Van Buren etc. Some leaders used dialects in their notes etc as the National languages had not yet been standardised.

The railroads introduced standard time across middle distances ( 100 -200 km) but before that each locale had their own time based on the Sun. The same process was applied to language once the modern nation states became established. The English rely on the Oxford English dictionary to provide a standard of how things should be done. The Americans rely on the Webster dictionary hence there are differences in grammar and spelling between these two versions of English. Similar differences exist in Canadian Australian and Indian english.

Because of the lessening of importance in correctnes and exactitude in written communications for many purposes the emphasis on correct spelling and grammar is not as important as it was when I went to school. I think schools give more importance to independent and critical thinking, planning and interpretation rather than to rote written work which is as it should be.

A spellchecker can now sort out most spelling mistakes and usage guides can be used when needed for formal legal work. Sales and presentations to older members of society also might benefit from good spelling and grammar practices.

The Princess Bride

riaganach wrote: »

That said, I do think grammar and spelling counts in the real world. Too many CVs are discarded by employers because of simple stuff like spelling and grammar.

A lot of jobs are about experience and aptitude, but if you're a crap communicator then I don't want to work with you or employ .

I agree with this.

In relation to the CVs, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.
In my opinion, if someone can't get the basic grammar correct while compiling a CV, then I'd question their ability with attention to detail in the long term.

I was talking to a teacher last week, and was surprised that her grammar was poor.What I'd consider basic- "I done" instead of "I did/I have done".

I guess I'd question why we'd be surprised that so many struggle with basic grammar, when the people they're around daily-family,friends,teachers,colleagues.... don't realise how they're speaking/writing.

Bad habits merely become what is normal.

Eeden

A lot comes down to register (casual, formal, etc). People speak and write differently depending on who they're with, where they're writing, etc. You don't speak to teachers, authorities, etc. the same way to do to your friends. You don't post on boards as though you're writing a report or a CV.

Eeden

Eeden wrote: »

A lot comes down to register (casual, formal, etc). People speak and write differently depending on who they're with, where they're writing, etc. You don't speak to teachers, authorities, etc. the same way to do to your friends. You don't post on boards as though you're writing a report or a CV.

The problem is when mistakes become so prevalent in casual use that people use them in formal situations, whether by accident or because they don't know they're mistakes

Akrasia

Savman wrote: »

Your/You're is a grammatical crime against humanity.
Nearly as bad as "should of".

:mad:

I think not knowing the difference between the words 'have' and 'of' is worse than getting 'your' and 'you're' mixed up.

'Should of' makes me cringe every time I hear it

Also, the misuse of the word 'addicting' has become widespread. Most of the time, the correct word is 'addictive' people!

The suffix 'ive' is generally used to apply to dispositions, like affective, effective, addictive etc.
Correct use: "This game is addictive"

When someone uses the suffix 'ing' in this context eg "This game is addicting"
it hurts my brain because, as everyone knows, the suffix -ing applies to an action of a verb

Andrew_Doran

The word "fewer" seems to be dying out and it grates on my ears when "less" is used where "fewer" should be. For example "less people". It sounds as wrong as "fewer water". Argh!