Could of would of

ShatterAlan

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I got into a discussion about this with an American I worked with. He got more and more heated insisting that "I could care less" was correct.


The cnut was in university too.

Intelligence is really about self awareness, more than anything. Any fool can pass an exam.

ablelocks

I do be caring less, so i do be.

runawaybishop

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Since generally in Ireland the farm is left to one son it's pretty fucking stupid to pull all younger sons out of school at the age of 12 when they don't stand much hope of inheriting much when the father croaks.

Dad was the eldest. Younger brother left school also to work though, stupid or not its what was done.

New Home

Zaph wrote: »

^This. How over the last couple of years have so many people lost the ability to differentiate between lose and loose? I have a friend who uses loose exclusively when he means lose, and you see it on Boards alot (another one that drives me mad).

Lose lost an o because it was loose.

46 Long

The use of 'revert' instead of 'reply' in emails.

Rubberchikken

Errors like those mentioned never bother me.
I don't think they're down to laziness though.
Maybe the quality of teaching has dropped?

ablelocks

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I don't think they're down to laziness though.
Maybe the quality of teaching has dropped?

New Home wrote: »

Lose lost an o because it was loose.

we got an email from the principal of our daughters national school.

very tempted to send her this in response....

Morleystreet

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Errors like those mentioned never bother me.
I don't think they're down to laziness though.
Maybe the quality of teaching has dropped?

Teachers only interested in reading, riting and rithmetic.

LLMMLL

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

Does it boil your piss when it is pronounced the way it is spelled? Because we nearly all do! Hence the reason why so many might make the mistake.

A certain amount of it might be down to peer pressure! That is after all why so many working class people stubbornly insist in saying "I seen" and "I done".

“I seen” and “I done” are perfectly grammatical.

“Should of” is a writing error. Nothing to do with grammar.

Brendan Bendar

LLMMLL wrote: »

“I seen” and “I done” are perfectly grammatical.

“Should of” is a writing error. Nothing to do with grammar.

Complete bull.

New Home

LLMMLL wrote: »

“I seen” and “I done” are perfectly grammatical.

“Should of” is a writing error. Nothing to do with grammar.

No, they are not, seen and done are past participles and need an auxiliary verb. You use the past simple form (saw and did) instead. So, depending on the tense you need, you either use "I have seen/done" or you use "I saw/did". And those are just some examples.

mistersifter

stop been pedantic will ye?



:pac:

LLMMLL

New Home wrote: »

No, they are not, seen and done are past participles and need an auxiliary verb. You use the past simple form (saw and did) instead. So, depending on the tense you need, you either use "I have seen/done" or you use "I saw/did". And those are just some examples.

You clearly do not understand grammar.

There are many variations in how groups of people speak.

Grammar rules are not supposed to describe how people SHOULD speak. They are there to describe how people DO speak.

Unfortunately linguistic education of older people was very old fashioned and tried to train them out of their natural accents and grammar and force them to speak in only one acceptable way.

Modern linguistics views this as basically killing off a species of animal.

So while people who say “I seen” may violate the “rule” you state in your post, you violate their “rule” by speaking how you speak.

Brendan Bendar

LLMMLL wrote: »

You clearly do not understand grammar.

There are many variations in how groups of people speak.

Grammar rules are not supposed to describe how people SHOULD speak. They are there to describe how people DO speak.

Unfortunately linguistic education of older people was very old fashioned and tried to train them out of their natural accents and grammar and force them to speak in only one acceptable way.

Modern linguistics views this as basically killing off a species of animal.

So while people who say “I seen” may violate the “rule” you state in your post, you violate their “rule” by speaking how you speak.

Way off the mark...... conspiracy theory thread …. … ^

jimgoose

New Home wrote: »

No, they are not, seen and done are past participles and need an auxiliary verb. You use the past simple form (saw and did) instead. So, depending on the tense you need, you either use "I have seen/done" or you use "I saw/did". And those are just some examples.

Reminds me of an Arab character in a book called "Siege" by American author Richard Hoyt. He had fairly decent English, except for some reason he only ever learned the past tense in the language. As in:

"Ah, Achmed, there you are - is Ivan finished with the trucks?"

"He was, sir. They were all ready right now and he was waiting in the office for you!"

Oink

I remember in high school I kept making the same spelling mistake. One day after acing a test my teacher calls me over and says: “Great job. Tell you what though. If I change your A to a B- it should help you remember how to spell that word.”

Well fvck me, I was cured.

Tig98

Tig98 wrote: »

It's not nonsense, its reality. My father and the majority of his friends have very poor literacy skills. Whatever about rural underfunding (the primary school had one teacher for all 30 odd kids), most boys were pulled out at a young age to work on the family farms. He didnt do an intercert, he didn't get any chance to use or maintain the little primary education he did get.

The farm and money making were seen as more important than formal education. It was a one or the other situation, which is why daughters were given an education since they would not inherit the farm.

That doesn’t explain why literacy is getting worse. Also 50 year olds were born in 1970. Free secondary schools were available since the 60s. A fifty year old graduated high school in 1988.

If you said 70, maybe, but they aren’t all over the internet.

And grammar can be taught in primary school. This isn’t the reason.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

“I seen” and “I done” are perfectly grammatical.

“Should of” is a writing error. Nothing to do with grammar.

Should of isn’t a big issue. It’s a homophone.

Neither I seen or I done are grammatical. You will probably respond with grammar being descriptive not prescriptive. But when we are talking grammar we are talking about formal rules of writing and the past tense of do is did. (Yes the past participle is done but that’s not the issue here).

It’s a weird one that. A child would use the past tense of did a lot. So it’s not corrected through childhood or in school.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should of isn’t a big issue. It’s a homophone.

Neither I seen or I done are grammatical. You will probably respond with grammar being descriptive not prescriptive. But when we are talking grammar we are talking about formal rules of writing and the past tense of do is did. (Yes the past participle is done but that’s not the issue here).

It’s a weird one that. A child would use the past tense of did a lot. So it’s not corrected through childhood or in school.

Nobody has mentioned formal rules of writing in relation to “I seen”.

Do you agree that someone who SAYS “I seen” is speaking perfectly grammatically?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned formal rules of writing in relation to “I seen”.

Do you agree that someone who SAYS “I seen” is speaking perfectly grammatically?

No. Of course not. Past tense is saw. Past participle is seen.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. Of course not. Past tense is saw. Past participle is seen.

So the entire field of linguistics is wrong and you are right? Bizarre.

Gaoth Laidir

Their is two much mis-takes too mention now adays, specially here on Boreds.Ie.

Here's one from earlier. Since when did "alot" become a word? What about "allot"?

I don't know if its similar to the way Carlow some times blocks Kilkenny and I know there is ALLOT more distance

There really is no hope for the future generation even full stops and punctuation have become a thing of the past wouldnt you agree...

New Home

No, they are not, pick up a grammar book and check. I agree that "I seen" and "I done" are colloquialisms, but grammatically they are incorrect, just like "Should've gone to specsavers" is technically incorrect, due to the lack of a subject (i.e. a noun or a pronoun).

Gaoth Laidir

Deleted User wrote: »

Should of isn’t a big issue. It’s a homophone.

Neither I seen or I done are grammatical. You will probably respond with grammar being descriptive not prescriptive. But when we are talking grammar we are talking about formal rules of writing and the past tense of do is did. (Yes the past participle is done but that’s not the issue here).

It’s a weird one that. A child would use the past tense of did a lot. So it’s not corrected through childhood or in school.

If someone sends in a CV without having taken the care to check for their own mistakes and have someone else proofread it too then straight into the bin it goes. Everyone plays the dyslexia card nowadays. Since when has more than 50% of the population suffered from dyslexia?

LLMMLL

New Home wrote: »

No, they are not, pick up a grammar book and check. I agree that "I seen" and "I done" are colloquialisms, but grammatically they are incorrect, just like "Should've gone to specsavers" is technically incorrect, due to the lack of a subject (i.e. a noun or a pronoun).

What grammar book? Most “grammar” books that a layperson would read are written by former English teachers with no background in linguistics.

Try “A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language” by Randolph Quirk for an actual expert view.

Gaoth Laidir

My daughter's English teacher (in 6th year) says "I seen" and "I done" all the time. Enough said.

New Home

So, which grammar books should I avoid? Anything with an auxiliary verb before the past participle? Usage and grammar are two different things.

Would you say "Mary eaten an apple" is grammatically correct?

EmmetSpiceland

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned formal rules of writing in relation to “I seen”.

Do you agree that someone who SAYS “I seen” is speaking perfectly grammatically?

Yeah, it’s not incorrect until it’s written down. English gives a lot of “leeway” to colloquial variants.

I, usually, don’t mind the whole “seen and done merchant” thing in conversation but it doesn’t look good in text form.

I remember the first time I heard the term “yizzers”, I actually burst out laughing as I thought the salesperson was joking. Since then, I’ve heard it a few times and it’s not an “issue” but if I saw it in text form I might wince a little.

LLMMLL

New Home wrote: »

So, which grammar books should I avoid? Anything with an auxiliary verb before the past participle? Usage and grammar are two different things.

Would you say "Mary eaten an apple" is grammatically correct?

Any grammar book that tells you there is one correct way of speaking and that dialect variants are bad or incorrect.

I’ve no issue with a language learning book only presenting the standard version for example.

But anything that suggests native speakers are somehow not speaking correctly is a massive no-no

tjhook

As well as whatever mistakes I make, I also purposely break some grammatical rules in in informal setting. For example In a Boards post I'll write "That's the town I came from" instead of "That's the town from which I came", even though I know it's not correct. I just feel the former is a more conversational and makes me sound a little less up myself

So(!) when I see gramatical errors in a Boards post, I don't immediately assume ignorance. But when I see clangers like "would of", "they ate they're food" or "taxi's" I tend to assume it's a lack of knowledge on the writer's part.

I think the way Irish and English are taught isn't great in this country. Nearly everybody has done a Junior/Inter and Leaving cert, which means they've studied poetry, multiple novels and plays. But yet so many people have big gaps in their understanding of basic grammar.

I wonder if it'd be better to dedicate the junior cycle of secondary school to getting the grammar and syntax correct, and worry about literature in senior cycle? Or perhaps remove literature from the lower/pass level for both cycles - higher level does literature and lower level is solely the language itself. In the long run I think it's more important to understand the grammar than to have studied Hamlet/Peig.