Could of would of

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 11:26am

tjhook wrote: »

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

“That’s the town I came from” is perfect grammatical English.

Brendan Bendar · 05-02-2021 11:30am

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

So by your standards it’s a free for all.

What do you mean by “native speakers”.

Everybody makes up their own version, is that it.

It’s like the rules of the road, there are the official rules.

Your “theory” would seem to say ‘Aah sure, we drive a different way in this neck of the woods”

Total rubbish.

tjhook · 05-02-2021 11:33am

LLMMLL wrote: »

“That’s the town I came from” is perfect grammatical English.

I was always taught that it's not strictly correct, but that it's acceptable in an informal setting, or even in a more formal setting if the "correct" version is too awkward.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 11:33am

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

So by your standards it’s a free for all.

What do you mean by “native speakers”.

Everybody makes up their own version, is that it.

It’s like the rules of the road, there are the official rules.

Your “theory” would seem to say ‘Aah sure, we drive a different way in this neck of the woods”

Total rubbish.

Nowhere did I say it’s a free for all.

Because people do not speak in random ways unless they have specific kinds of brain damage.

People say “I seen” because they grew up around a group of people who consistently say “I seen”.

Just like you learned “I saw” because you grew up around a group of people who consistently say “I saw”.

That’s the only difference. You just want to believe your group is inherently “good”.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 11:37am

tjhook wrote: »

I was always taught that it's not strictly correct, but that it's acceptable in an informal setting, or even in a more formal setting if the "correct" version is too awkward.

You were taught wrong.

Unless your goal is to fit into a social group. Such as learning which of 3 forks you should use for which course.

If a social group requires to use stilted formal English then it’s “correct” to use stilted formal English.

But it has nothing to do with grammar.

joe40 · 05-02-2021 11:39am

My pet hate is "youse" written down. It probably is a failing in English that there isn't a plural for you. (Plural may not be the correct word but referring to a group of more than one)

"Ye" has become archaic.

tjhook · 05-02-2021 11:54am

LLMMLL wrote: »

You were taught wrong.

A quick look online shows a diversity of opinions, from "it's fine", to "it is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition if the alternative would create confusion or is too overly formal" to "this isn’t a steadfast English language rule, but it is looked down on as sloppy and incorrect".

To be fair, the more permissive interpretation does seem to be more common today.

ablelocks · 05-02-2021 11:55am

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?

joe40 wrote: »

My pet hate is "youse" written down. It probably is a failing in English that there isn't a plural for you. (Plural may not be the correct word but referring to a group of more than one)

"Ye" has become archaic.

i use ye all the time.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 11:58am

tjhook wrote: »

A quick look online shows a diversity of opinions, from "it's fine", to "it is acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition if the alternative would create confusion or is too overly formal" to "this isn’t a steadfast English language rule, but it is looked down on as sloppy and incorrect".

To be fair, the more permissive interpretation does seem to be more common today.

The two examples you’ve given are all about trying to fit in with social groups. Cover letters are about applying for jobs. I wouldn’t turn up to a job interview in a tracksuit. Doesn’t mean there’s something inherently “incorrect” with tracksuits. The other is academic writing which is its own social group. And it’s all about written English.

The basic rule is that native speakers do not speak incorrect English unless they have brain damage or are distracted while speaking.

Invidious · 05-02-2021 1:08pm

tjhook wrote: »

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.

The Department of Education revised the Leaving Cert curriculum about 20 years ago to encourage students to express themselves first and worry about grammar, spelling, etc., second. It was felt (in my view, misguidedly) that trying to write correctly impedes self-expression.

As a consequence, only 10 percent of the marks in Leaving Cert English now go for mechanics (spelling, grammar, syntax). So teachers have little incentive to focus on these things, given that a student can get 90 percent even if he writes his answer in txt spk.

05-02-2021 2:08pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

The two examples you’ve given are all about trying to fit in with social groups. Cover letters are about applying for jobs. I wouldn’t turn up to a job interview in a tracksuit. Doesn’t mean there’s something inherently “incorrect” with tracksuits. The other is academic writing which is its own social group. And it’s all about written English.

The basic rule is that native speakers do not speak incorrect English unless they have brain damage or are distracted while speaking.

And yet people learn grammar when they learn a language. Plenty of idioms work as spoken English - the idiomatic use of I am after ( from the Irish Tá me tar eis) is fine.

The 3rd most common verb is “do”. It’s isn’t a dialect or an idiom to get that wrong, it’s just wrong.

It’s also odd because the proper past tense is used in the interrogative.

What did you do?
I done nothing.

Anyway we are talking about text not speech here, could of isn’t a problem in speech.

Brendan Bendar · 05-02-2021 2:14pm

Invidious wrote: »

The Department of Education revised the Leaving Cert curriculum about 20 years ago to encourage students to express themselves first and worry about grammar, spelling, etc., second. It was felt (in my view, misguidedly) that trying to write correctly impedes self-expression.

As a consequence, only 10 percent of the marks in Leaving Cert English now go for mechanics (spelling, grammar, syntax). So teachers have little incentive to focus on these things, given that a student can get 90 percent even if he writes his answer in txt spk.

That’s the big fault with teaching today, and why we are seeing such poor grammar in the written word .

Brendan Bendar · 05-02-2021 2:24pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

The two examples you’ve given are all about trying to fit in with social groups. Cover letters are about applying for jobs. I wouldn’t turn up to a job interview in a tracksuit. Doesn’t mean there’s something inherently “incorrect” with tracksuits. The other is academic writing which is its own social group. And it’s all about written English.

The basic rule is that native speakers do not speak incorrect English unless they have brain damage or are distracted while speaking.

Not correct, despite how much you doth protest.

‘I seen it’.... no matter how much you come up with ‘reasons’ is just plain wrong.

I am well aware of people trying ‘fit in’ and adopting the terms of speech of those who they mix with and socialize with.

It’s not a hanging offense of course, but it’s still wrong.

joe40 · 05-02-2021 2:26pm

ablelocks wrote: »

i use ye all the time.

I don't think I have ever seen "ye" been used. I don't doubt you use the word but it is rare.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 4:10pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Not correct, despite how much you doth protest.

‘I seen it’.... no matter how much you come up with ‘reasons’ is just plain wrong.

I am well aware of people trying ‘fit in’ and adopting the terms of speech of those who they mix with and socialize with.

It’s not a hanging offense of course, but it’s still wrong.

If there is only one form of correct English then why don’t we all still speak Shakespearean English?

Brendan Bendar · 05-02-2021 5:28pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

If there is only one form of correct English then why don’t we all still speak Shakespearean English?

My Friend, I have said my piece, no point in beating the bollox out of it.

The rules are there..... it’s as easy to follow them as not.

If you do- fine

If you don’t - fine

Up to you.

Have a good evening.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 5:34pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

My Friend, I have said my piece, no point in beating the bollox out of it.

The rules are there..... it’s as easy to follow them as not.

If you do- fine

If you don’t - fine

Up to you.

Have a good evening.

Yes people are free to not follow rules that are purely social and nothing to do with grammar

maebee · 05-02-2021 6:02pm

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

What I can’t figure out is why Paschal Donoghue keeps saying that he will ‘respond back’ to people.

No need for the ‘back’ surely ?

Also, I've heard him say that he will "revert back". I've heard others in RTE saying the same thing. You would expect them to know that the word "revert" means "to go back".

05-02-2021 6:07pm

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes people are free to not follow rules that are purely social and nothing to do with grammar

But the past tense of to do is clearly grammar.

Grammar is a social construction anyway - that’s not as winning as argument as you seem to think. Language and grammar are however an agreed upon social construction to convey information.

And this isn’t some esoteric thing like split infinitives, which don’t matter. It’s a common verb.

dxhound2005 · 05-02-2021 6:12pm

maebee wrote: »

Also, I've heard him say that he will "revert back". I've heard others in RTE saying the same thing. You would expect them to know that the word "revert" means "to go back".

Report Back has made it into the dictionary. Dictionaries record language in ordinary usage. If it becomes widespread Revert Back will go in the dictionary. The new usage of Revert is already in the dictionary.

report back
to come again and report (to someone); to send a report (to someone). He was asked to study the matter in detail and report back to the committee.

dxhound2005 · 05-02-2021 6:21pm

His Restoration I can compare to nothing better than that easie, delicious, and jocund Temper of the Elements, of Heaven, the Air, and Sea, after a violent and outragious Tempest, or rather after the great Deluge of the World; at which Time, he prov'd himself the Noah's Dove, that finding no Rest any where, was receiv'd again into his own Ark, and brought a peaceable Olive-Leaf in his Mouth.

The above is a piece of written English from the old days. Was it correct to put apparently random capital letters, or to spell words differently than they are spelled today? Was it correct to replace E with an apostrophe. It was at the time, it would be regarded as incorrect now.

In two hundred years time, the usages of today will be replaced with something else again. So there is no point in defending them as being the only way that words can ever be defined, spoken, spelled or written. The language is ever evolving and language purists have been proved to be wrong in the past, are being proved wrong now, and will be proved wrong in the future.

05-02-2021 6:21pm

joe40 wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen "ye" been used. I don't doubt you use the word but it is rare.

Pretty common in Munster.

05-02-2021 6:26pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

His Restoration I can compare to nothing better than that easie, delicious, and jocund Temper of the Elements, of Heaven, the Air, and Sea, after a violent and outragious Tempest, or rather after the great Deluge of the World; at which Time, he prov'd himself the Noah's Dove, that finding no Rest any where, was receiv'd again into his own Ark, .

In two hundred years time, the usages of today will be replaced with something else again. So there is no point in defending them as being the only way that words can ever be defined, spoken, spelled or written. The language is ever evolving and language purists have been proved to be wrong in the past, are being proved wrong now, and will be proved wrong in the future.

Neither the “grammar is a social construct” nor the “language changes” argument carry any weight at all. Nor am I, for one, a language purist. Nevertheless the past tense of the to do verb is did, not done.

For now. And yes that’s a social construct. And yes it’s an irregular. And yes rules change (but grammar less do that other word usage).

maebee · 05-02-2021 6:26pm

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Report Back has made it into the dictionary. Dictionaries record language in ordinary usage. If it becomes widespread Revert Back will go in the dictionary. The new usage of Revert is already in the dictionary.

report back
to come again and report (to someone); to send a report (to someone). He was asked to study the matter in detail and report back to the committee.

I can understand "report back" and I don't see anything wrong with it. "Revert back" is completely wrong. It's the equivalent of saying "I'll go back, back"

EmmetSpiceland · 05-02-2021 6:29pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yes rules change (but grammar less do that other word usage).

But the rules only apply to written English, right?

dxhound2005 · 05-02-2021 6:39pm

maebee wrote: »

I can understand "report back" and I don't see anything wrong with it. "Revert back" is completely wrong. It's the equivalent of saying "I'll go back, back"

Not when you accept that Revert has gained a new definition. Seemingly started in e mails (or emails, both are correct) meaning to Reply/Respond. When you accept that definition, Revert Back is no more odd than Report Back.

we will revert to you with pricing and other details

05-02-2021 6:58pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

But the rules only apply to written English, right?

Grammar, and language, is an agreed upon set of sounds by which we communicate. There’s perhaps more leeway on the spoken language. But not that much. If I decide the past tense of to do is ghjghhgv then nobody would understand. It should be obvious that there are vastly more words I can use for the past tense of to do, and only one correct one.

Ok, you say there are two.

I did and I done.

They only argument I have seen here to justify I done is that it’s understood. That rules out ghjghhgv. However all languages have rules, even if some dialects break the rules. The distinction between text and speech is really between formal and informal. It’s clearly a breach of the formal rules.

Does that make I done right informally. No. There’s no dialect here where that’s acceptable. No one region or class where it’s universally used.

It’s a mistake. It’s wrong.

EmmetSpiceland · 05-02-2021 7:04pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Grammar, and language, is an agreed upon set of sounds by which we communicate. There’s perhaps more leeway on the spoken language. But not that much. If I decide the past tense of to do is ghjghhgv then nobody would understand. It should be obvious that there are vastly more words I can use for the past tense of to do, and only one correct one.

Ok, you say there are two.

I did and I done.

They only argument I have seen here to justify I done is that it’s understood. That rules out ghjghhgv. However all languages have rules, even if some dialects break the rules. The distinction between text and speech is really between formal and informal. It’s clearly a breach of the formal rules.

Does that make I done right informally. No. There’s no dialect here where that’s acceptable. No one region or class where it’s universally used.

It’s a mistake. It’s wrong.

It’s wrong to write it, certainly, but in spoken English I’m not sure that’s the case unless it’s a formal address, of sorts.

There’s parts of England, the northern part, where they don’t seem to use the definite article. This isn’t an “issue” if it’s being spoken, the meaning is understood. It’s only, really, open to correction when it’s written down.

We speak English differently to the English, North Americans and the Australians but the written language is the same.

dxhound2005 · 05-02-2021 7:09pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

It’s wrong to write it, certainly, but in spoken English I’m not sure that’s the case unless it’s a formal address, of sorts.

There’s parts of England, the northern part, where they don’t seem to use the definite article. This isn’t an “issue” if it’s being spoken, the meaning is understood. It’s only, really, open to correction when it’s written down.

We speak English differently to the English, North Americans and the Australians but the written language is the same.

The written language wasn't the same in the extract I posted. And it will keep changing.

LLMMLL · 05-02-2021 7:17pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But the past tense of to do is clearly grammar.

Grammar is a social construction anyway - that’s not as winning as argument as you seem to think. Language and grammar are however an agreed upon social construction to convey information.

And this isn’t some esoteric thing like split infinitives, which don’t matter. It’s a common verb.

“Agreed upon” is a stretch. Unless you mean that people who grew up in a group of people and talk like that group of people have reached an “agreement” with them.

It’s an implicit flexible agreement, not a contract.

There are lots of exceptions to rules in language. We usually call them “irregular verbs” etc.

It’s just that when a non dominant social group uses “irregular verbs” you consider it an ungrammatical error.

When the dominant social group uses them they are “irregular verbs”.

Could of would of

Comments