Most hated grammatical error [Merged]

FlutterinBantam · 04-12-2008 9:11pm

+1

c-note · 04-12-2008 9:15pm

you can eat half your cake?

anyway one of my most hated is

"he was sat beside me"

BroomBurner · 04-12-2008 9:17pm

c-note wrote: »

you can eat half your cake?

anyway one of my most hated is

"he was sat beside me"

Then it would definitely have to be 'you can't eat your cake and halve it'

javaboy · 04-12-2008 9:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

are you intentionally misspelling Murphy's? that's the second time you've made the error.

Look up Muphry's Law in Google.

@obl: nice escape. With wriggling like that, you could be a politician!

P.C. · 04-12-2008 9:20pm

BroomBurner wrote: »

It works both ways. You can't have your cake, as in you can't have it indefinitely, and eat it. The word "and" is important. It ensures that the words 'have' and 'eat' are mutually exclusive*. Ergo, it can be read and spoken either way.

In terms of the melody of language, it obviously sounds better to read it with the 'have' first.

No, because if you say to me: you can't have your cake and eat it.

I will say: yes, I can!

But if you say: you can't eat your cake and have it.

I have to agree, as it is physicaly imposibly for me to still have something after I have eaten it.

It is not about the melody of the language, this is why so many people get it wrong. They are more interested in it sounding nice than they are in it being correct.

staker · 04-12-2008 9:24pm

There is loads of grammatical errors I don't like:p

BroomBurner · 04-12-2008 9:26pm

I'm not gonna argue with ya PC over something so simple. Suffice to say, we'll have to agree to disagree. The word 'have' can be read different ways, so technically, we are both correct. Either way, it's not technically a grammatical error.

04-12-2008 9:26pm

javaboy wrote: »

Look up Muphry's Law in Google.

was thinking that was a bit of an obvious boo boo!!!

fionnmar · 04-12-2008 9:34pm

When people refer to the 'first criteria' or 'second criteria' we need to meet. The singular of criteria is criterion. Drives me mad.

04-12-2008 9:36pm

fionnmar wrote: »

When people refer to the 'first criteria' or 'second criteria' we need to meet. The singular of criteria is criterion. Drives me mad.

sounds like a member of the starship enterprise

pierrot · 04-12-2008 9:40pm

c-note wrote: »

anyway one of my most hated is

"he was sat beside me"

past perfect, no?

emeraldstar · 04-12-2008 9:48pm

fionnmar wrote: »

When people refer to the 'first criteria' or 'second criteria' we need to meet. The singular of criteria is criterion. Drives me mad.

Yeah, there's an ad on TV that talks about how "just one bacteria can blah blah blah".

The singular of 'bacteria' is 'bacterium' you tards. It angers me every time I hear it.

littlefriend · 04-12-2008 10:00pm

May have been mentioned already - quiet instead of quite and vice versa. Actually, now that I think of it I can't stand when people say vic-a versa.

Mr. Presentable · 04-12-2008 10:01pm

There are two:

"I done"
"I seen"

littlefriend · 04-12-2008 10:04pm

Eagle Star used to have an ad that said ''There IS pensions and the IS Eagle Star pensions''....
It ran for ages before 'is' was changed to 'are'.

tolosenc · 04-12-2008 10:07pm

Yes, javaboy, "could be"...

Ooh, ooh, ooh. Another one:

"None of these children are wearing shoes."

Grrrrr.

Thanks goes to the first one to spot and correct the error.

phasers · 04-12-2008 10:14pm

^ who are *these* children? shouldn't it be those?

emeraldstar · 04-12-2008 10:15pm

None of these children IS ...

ciaran76 · 04-12-2008 10:15pm

People who say foot pad. That wrecks my head.

04-12-2008 10:16pm

ciaran76 wrote: »

People who say foot pad. That wrecks my head.

LOL - you robbed my post!!!

emeraldstar · 04-12-2008 10:17pm

ciaran76 wrote: »

People who say foot pad. That wrecks my head.

It just confuses me. Utterly.

Sam Vimes · 04-12-2008 10:23pm

obl wrote: »

"None of these children are wearing shoes."

None of these children is wearing shoes?

edit: I shouldn't have thought about it for so long

Random · 04-12-2008 10:25pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A friend of mine who is also on boards does this all the time. And what's worse is I've told him he's got it wrong and even taken the piss out of him for it but he continues to do it. I should be allowed to kill people

Edit: I know you're not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction so don't bother pointing it out :P

Some people can't help these things ! Just look down on them and pass judgement like you would with any random person, and move on.

trishasaffron · 04-12-2008 10:26pm

Whew read to the end and don't see that anyone posted my least favourite. the misuse of complimentary and complementary - you see it everywhere. Complementary meals on offer, complimentary product ranges...grrr

Sam Vimes · 04-12-2008 10:29pm

Random wrote: »

Some people can't help these things ! Just look down on them and pass judgement like you would with any random person, and move on.

Naaa. A machete is the only thing for it

emeraldstar · 04-12-2008 10:34pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

None of these children is wearing shoes?

edit: I shouldn't have thought about it for so long

aviendha · 04-12-2008 10:39pm

people who pronounce weetabix with a non-silent, non-existent H
"wheatabix"
argh!

stovelid · 04-12-2008 10:39pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Edit: I know you're not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction so don't bother pointing it out :P

Not strictly true. It's acceptable to start a sentence with a conjunction, but it was just discouraged for a long time. It's an effective means of emphasis, if you don't overuse it.

javaboy · 04-12-2008 10:45pm

aviendha wrote: »

people who pronounce weetabix with a non-silent, non-existent H
"wheatabix"
argh!

P.C. · 04-12-2008 10:47pm

obl wrote: »

Yes, javaboy, "could be"...

Ooh, ooh, ooh. Another one:

"None of these children are wearing shoes."

Grrrrr.

Thanks goes to the first one to spot and correct the error.

Child = singuar
is = singular

children = plural
are = plural

The child is running.
The children are running.

The child is wearing shoes.
The children are wearing shoes.

Hellm0 · 04-12-2008 10:48pm

As a diagnosed dyslexic, I hate grammar Nazi's, condescending peasants and generally people with such small minds and bitter soul's that they feel compelled to haunt internet forums correcting people's spelling and grammar.

So long as the message is understood it is a valid message and communication has succeeded. Also linguistic bigotry sickens me, local colloquialisms are as valid form of language as any other.

javaboy · 04-12-2008 10:53pm

Hellm0 wrote: »

As a diagnosed dyslexic, I hate grammar Nazi's, condescending peasants and generally people with such small minds and bitter soul's that they feel compelled to haunt internet forums correcting people's spelling and grammar.

Damn right. While spelling and grammar mistakes irritate me at times, I don't feel compelled to point them out to someone unless they themselves are being a smartass about somebody else's grammar/spelling. The exception is deliberate crap like rtrd spk.

Also linguistic bigotry sickens me, local colloquialisms are as valid form of language as any other.

+1. 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.

emeraldstar · 04-12-2008 11:02pm

Hellm0 wrote: »

As a diagnosed dyslexic, I hate grammar Nazi's, condescending peasants and generally people with such small minds and bitter soul's that they feel compelled to haunt internet forums correcting people's spelling and grammar.

So long as the message is understood it is a valid message and communication has succeeded. Also linguistic bigotry sickens me, local colloquialisms are as valid form of language as any other.

Yes, but if everyone had that attitude language would just deteriorate and deteriorate and there would be no standards to base anything on. Some sort of touchstone is needed.

And we are human, not apes. A grunt can succeed in getting a message across, but you wouldn't necessarily want the human race going around grunting at eachother...

mazcon · 04-12-2008 11:02pm

Potatoe and tomatoe.

javaboy · 04-12-2008 11:09pm

mazcon wrote: »

Potatoe and tomatoe.

paulgreene · 04-12-2008 11:10pm

and their mistakes as well!
but of i.e. have, never seen this one

Hellm0 · 04-12-2008 11:14pm

emeraldstar wrote: »

Yes, but if everyone had that attitude language would just deteriorate and deteriorate and there would be no standards to base anything on. Some sort of touchstone is needed.

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.

Sam Vimes · 04-12-2008 11:17pm

P.C. wrote: »

Child = singuar
is = singular

children = plural
are = plural

The child is running.
The children are running.

The child is wearing shoes.
The children are wearing shoes.

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

None of These Candidates is a voting option for Nevada voters

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"

hullaballoo · 04-12-2008 11:18pm

P.C. wrote: »

Child = singuar
is = singular

children = plural
are = plural

The child is running.
The children are running.

The child is wearing shoes.
The children are wearing shoes.

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

MizzLolly · 04-12-2008 11:18pm

I think ''footpad'' instead of ''footpath'' was quite a cock-up!

04-12-2008 11:20pm

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 · 04-12-2008 11:23pm

hullaballú wrote: »

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

bwahahahahaha. Got there first this time

:pac:

tolosenc · 04-12-2008 11:23pm

'Zackleh.

None = not one.

Make this substitution to see which one is correct.

javaboy · 04-12-2008 11:31pm

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 · 04-12-2008 11:32pm

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. · 04-12-2008 11:32pm

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 · 04-12-2008 11:39pm

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 · 04-12-2008 11:40pm

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 · 04-12-2008 11:42pm

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

P.C. · 04-12-2008 11:42pm

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.

Most hated grammatical error [Merged]

Comments