Most hated grammatical error [Merged]

Sam Vimes · 04-12-2008 11:47pm

P.C. wrote: »

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.

i'm confused. are you now saying that "none of these children is" is correct but that a different way of saying it would be better?

Splendour · 04-12-2008 11:53pm

Haven't time to read through the whole thread, but I reckon we could do with a reference copy of 'Eats, Shoots and Leaves' on Boards.ie...

P.C. · 04-12-2008 11:53pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

i'm confused. are you now saying that "none of these children is" is correct but that a different way of saying it would be better?

I never said it was not correct, but, yes, I am saying that a different way of saying it is easier.

It is up to you to decided if it is better or not.

Sam Vimes · 04-12-2008 11:55pm

P.C. wrote: »

I never said it was not correct, but, yes, I am saying that a different way of saying it is easier.

It is up to you to decided if it is better or not.

right so

emeraldstar · 05-12-2008 1:37am

P.C. wrote: »

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.

Oh too funny!

emeraldstar · 05-12-2008 1:45am

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.

Not at all. Just that whichever one you do speak you speak properly

mandysmithers · 05-12-2008 10:14am

obl wrote: »

Thank you. Not that I learned anything, just nice to know that not everyone sees the necessity to hyper-correct himself.

Are you insinuating that I'm a hyper-correcting pedant.....did you actually read your own post?

tolosenc · 05-12-2008 10:26am

No, I said quite the opposite.

Alun · 05-12-2008 10:50am

javaboy wrote: »

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.

In a way, yes. However, consider what evolution actually is in nature. It's the selection of random mutations in organisms by a process that favours the ones that actually give the organism an advantage.

The same should hold true for language, and those random mutations that are, in fact, nothing but mistakes made by people incapable of understanding a few simple rules should rightly die out, and only the ones that result in a real simplification of the language should survive.

How society decides what mutations die out and which survive is the question, I suppose.

javaboy · 05-12-2008 11:13am

Alun wrote: »

In a way, yes. However, consider what evolution actually is in nature. It's the selection of random mutations in organisms by a process that favours the ones that actually give the organism an advantage.

The same should hold true for language, and those random mutations that are, in fact, nothing but mistakes made by people incapable of understanding a few simple rules should rightly die out, and only the ones that result in a real simplification of the language should survive.

How society decides what mutations die out and which survive is the question, I suppose.

Hey I'm not saying we should let spelling mistakes become the order of the day but when I hear people scoffing at someone breaking one of the more arbitrary rules such as placing a comma after a conjunction, it irritates me more than the errors themselves. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't strive to use correct grammar, punctuation and spelling but if five hundred years ago everybody had carried on the way grammar nazis do today, we would haveth a language that wouldeth pain the arse greatly I fear.

stovelid · 05-12-2008 11:30am

It's often just a matter of manners. We're posting informally on an internet forum; we're not writing technical documentation, newspaper, or academic articles.

I do a good deal of writing for my job, and I would consider my grammar to be OK. I still, however, make mistakes. Why bother trying to humiliate somebody unless they are text-speaking, or being a dickhead? If you can read the post, let it be. If I see a second or third post (in a thread) that says nothing except to smugly point out a grammatical error in an otherwise well-meant OP, I just think Twat. Same for the people that thank it.

There can often a sly class prejudice at work too. Access to boards is not limited to people who attained a certain standard of education. Not everybody has the basic writing skills that many of us take for granted.

Mr. Presentable · 05-12-2008 11:39am

mazcon wrote: »

Potatoe and tomatoe.

Neither is a grammatical error. Both are spelling errors.

javaboy · 05-12-2008 11:47am

nipplenuts wrote: »

Neither is a grammatical error. Both are spelling errors.

Ah but then "Tomatoe and potatoe." is a sentence fragment. Maybe the additional "e"s were merely misdirection.

RoosterIllusion · 05-12-2008 11:57am

Without a doubt: "I would OF" instead of I would HAVE"

It's HAVE, not OF you ****ing idiots!

That being said, I used to say "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes". Though I knew it was intents and purposes, I ways spoke it as intensive purposes. Hrmm.

Also: putting a comma in a sentence combined with "and". Example being: "Barry, myself and john" whereas some people say "Barry, myself, and John".

Starting a sentence with But or And is also something I don't do.

Definitely the crowning achievement would have to be the €3.00 Beamish in Callanans pub in Cork city, I mean €3.00 for a pint of Beamish that is better than Beamish I've had in the brewery definitely says a lot.

dlofnep · 05-12-2008 12:03pm

Dis tred is stewpid. lollolol

amirite?

Correcting grammar on the internet, is like... Well, I don't have a suitable comparison.. But it's just as annoying as those who write in text-speek.

dh2007 · 05-12-2008 12:13pm

tech77 wrote: »

That has to be THE most annoying grammatical error.
Simply because no grammar mistake comes so loaded with that odious combination of ignorance and pomposity.

Most grammar mistakes are uncontrived whereas that one is anything but and makes the user sound like a pretentious fool.
Makes me shudder every time i hear it.

I was once corrected for saying, "That belongs to me and John" (I know technically it should be John and me), but the retard who was correcting me was trying to tell me that I should have said, "I bought a drink for John & I". When I told him he was incorrect he was having none of it. It's just so bloody infuriating!! :mad:

What also annoys me is when people use 'Myself and John are going to the shops'. Would you say, 'Myself is going to the shops'? No! so don't use it then thickos. Why do people have such a strange aversion to using 'John and I are going to the shops' in this country?

I think it's because people think they will sound too posh if they use it.

Honey-ec · 05-12-2008 1:00pm

I think I've used my daily quota of thanks just catching up on this thread.

As for the dyslexic comment - I have a friend who is severely dyslexic and she has said over and over again that the inability or unwillingless of people to use half-decent grammar and punctuation only makes life even more difficult for her.

Now, back to the topic: data/datum. I don't think I've ever seen "data" treated as a plural.

Smart Bug · 05-12-2008 1:05pm

Honey-ec wrote: »

Now, back to the topic: data/datum. I don't think I've ever seen "data" treated as a plural.

Data is a plural noun, a collection of facts or statistics. Datum is one item, i.e. a point of reference. Use of datums to refer to a collection of facts or statistics is also correct.

Smart Bug · 05-12-2008 1:08pm

Also fishes is a correct term for use of describing several fishes of different species. Fish is a collection of fish of one species.

Just thought I'd add that because fishes is one of my favourite words. Fishes. I like fishes.

dh2007 · 05-12-2008 1:45pm

Smart Bug wrote: »

Also fishes is a correct term for use of describing several fishes of different species. Fish is a collection of fish of one species.

Just thought I'd add that because fishes is one of my favourite words. Fishes. I like fishes.

Like the 'loaves and the fishes' parable in the Bible.

not technically a grammatical error, but why on earth are some people addicted to using ellipses all the time?? And do people not know there are only supposed to be three 'dot dot dots', not two, not four but THREE...

javaboy · 05-12-2008 2:03pm

Smart Bug wrote: »

Data is a plural noun, a collection of facts or statistics. Datum is one item, i.e. a point of reference. Use of datums to refer to a collection of facts or statistics is also correct.

Media is another one. The meeja is biased. Grrrrr! :mad:

05-12-2008 2:08pm

I'm sure these have been covered already but I hate people who misuse "its" and "it's".

Also hate the One Direct car insurance that goes "if you have two or less penalty points..."

Last one is "I do be". I think it's a midlands thing. "I do be very thirsty when I finish playing with the sheep".

Grr, I say.

Smart Bug · 05-12-2008 2:28pm

javaboy wrote: »

Media is another one. The meeja is biased. Grrrrr! :mad:

If you're talking about one newspaper is the 'medium'?

Judging some of the standards of 'news reporting' out there I might be right...

gustavo · 05-12-2008 2:51pm

your instead of you're - very common on this board

should of instead of should have

using apostrophes in plurals i.e there's a lot of car's on the road

Not knowing the difference between there / their / they're

Sam Vimes · 05-12-2008 2:54pm

gustavo wrote: »

your instead of you're

should of instead of should have

using apostrophes in plurals i.e there's a lot of car's on the road

the word "there's" should be "there are" :P

kiffer · 05-12-2008 2:56pm

dh2007 wrote: »

I was once corrected for saying, "That belongs to me and John" (I know technically it should be John and me), but the retard who was correcting me was trying to tell me that I should have said, "I bought a drink for John & I". When I told him he was incorrect he was having none of it. It's just so bloody infuriating!! :mad:

I thought "me and Jack" vs. "Jack and me" was more of a style issue.
Which reminds me, I hate it when people correct stylistic "errors" in the same manner as they correct actual grammatical errors.
It's possible to create a sentence that is correct in terms of grammar but just sounds bad in terms of style.

Yes the sentence could be better but it's not wrong.

What also annoys me is when people use 'Myself and John are going to the shops'. Would you say, 'Myself is going to the shops'? No! so don't use it then thickos. Why do people have such a strange aversion to using 'John and I are going to the shops' in this country?

I think it's because people think they will sound too posh if they use it.

Oh god ...overuse and incorrect use of 'Myself' and 'yourself'

"I think myself and yourself should go to the shops"

gustavo · 05-12-2008 3:07pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

the word "there's" should be "there are" :P

I'm not too sure if you're right there :pac:

dh2007 · 05-12-2008 3:15pm

kiffer wrote: »

I thought "me and Jack" vs. "Jack and me" was more of a style issue.

Yeah, it could be a stylistic issue. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you have to put the other person first. It being more polite to put others before you and all that jazz

kiffer wrote: »

Oh god ...overuse and incorrect use of 'Myself' and 'yourself'

"I think myself and yourself should go to the shops"

e.g. 'I'm grand, yourself?' GRRR

hullaballoo · 05-12-2008 3:20pm

dh2007 wrote: »

Like the 'loaves and the fishes' parable in the Bible.

not technically a grammatical error, but why on earth are some people addicted to using ellipses all the time?? And do people not know there are only supposed to be three 'dot dot dots', not two, not four but THREE...

Actually, it's four where the missing text includes a full stop.

E.g. From my sig: 'I woke up yesterday....[e]verything was the exact same, but there were no cats!?'

shellyboo · 05-12-2008 3:30pm

hullaballú wrote: »

Actually, it's four where the missing text includes a full stop.

E.g. From my sig: 'I woke up yesterday....[e]verything was the exact same, but there were no cats!?'

Really? I thought in that case, where an ellipsis indicates omission after a full stop, the ellipsis goes within square brackets so as to minimise messiness and confusion. Or at least that's what I've always seen and been taught. So, when partially quoting your sig:

"So, today, I posted a comment ... calling him a Nazi"

but

"I woke up yesterday morning in a parallel universe. [...] So, today, I posted a comment on the Schrödinger wiki page calling him a Nazi"

javaboy · 05-12-2008 3:35pm

shellyboo wrote: »

Really? I thought in that case, where an ellipsis indicates omission after a full stop, the ellipsis goes within square brackets so as to minimise messiness and confusion. Or at least that's what I've always seen and been taught. So, when partially quoting your sig:

"So, today, I posted a comment ... calling him a Nazi"

but

"I woke up yesterday morning in a parallel universe. [...] So, today, I posted a comment on the Schrödinger wiki page calling him a Nazi"

The square brackets is correct and makes for easier reading but is not required.

shellyboo · 05-12-2008 3:37pm

javaboy wrote: »

The square brackets is correct and makes for easier reading but is not required.

Yeah, I've just never come across the four dots thing before so now I'm curious!

hullaballoo · 05-12-2008 3:38pm

shellyboo wrote:

Really? I thought in that case, where an ellipsis indicates omission after a full stop, the ellipsis goes within square brackets so as to minimise messiness and confusion. Or at least that's what I've always seen and been taught. So, when partially quoting your sig:

"So, today, I posted a comment ... calling him a Nazi"

but

"I woke up yesterday morning in a parallel universe. [...] So, today, I posted a comment on the Schrödinger wiki page calling him a Nazi"

That's correct, but you see, you've already included the full stop outside of the brackets. Where your quotation continues right through the end of a sentence and picks back up in the middle of the next (or another) sentence, you should ensure that there is an extra '.' in your elipse.

At least, that's what the law department in UCC are preaching.

mandysmithers · 05-12-2008 3:40pm

Another one I hate is when people use 'thought' instead of 'taught', eg. I thought him everything he knows. Dickheads.

shellyboo · 05-12-2008 3:41pm

hullaballú wrote: »

That's correct, but you see, you've already included the full stop outside of the brackets. Where your quotation continues right through the end of a sentence and picks back up in the middle of the next (or another) sentence, you should ensure that there is an extra '.' in your elipse.

At least, that's what the law department in UCC are preaching.

Really? That makes my brain itch. I no likey

Smart Bug · 05-12-2008 3:47pm

mandysmithers wrote: »

Another one I hate is when people use 'thought' instead of 'taught', eg. I thought him everything he knows. Dickheads.

Well, they could be inferring some type of knowledge transferral through telepathic transmission...

dh2007 · 05-12-2008 3:55pm

mandysmithers wrote: »

Another one I hate is when people use 'thought' instead of 'taught', eg. I thought him everything he knows. Dickheads.

That annoys me too! Why do so many people have such a problem with the 'th' sound?

some irritating examples:

when 'thongue' is said instead of 'tongue'
'throath' instead of 'throat'
'threadmill' instead of 'treadmill'
'thighland' instead of 'thailand' (with a silent 'h' in the latter)

I suspect it's more prevalent in the country though, with Dubs dropping the 'th' sound more often than accidentally including it.

kiffer · 05-12-2008 4:00pm

dh2007 wrote: »

Yeah, it could be a stylistic issue. But I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you have to put the other person first. It being more polite to put others before you and all that jazz

More polite but not more correct.
Still the whole "me, myself and I" situation seems to be a minefield of mistakes and confusion for some people.

*sings*
You and me, me and you, lots and lots for us to do!

Does any one remember that childrens programme? I think it was on Channel 4 about 20 years ago

dh2007 · 05-12-2008 4:05pm

kiffer wrote: »

More polite but not more correct.
Still the whole "me, myself and I" situation seems to be a minefield of mistakes and confusion for some people.

*sings*
You and me, me and you, lots and lots for us to do!

Does any one remember that childrens programme? I think it was on Channel 4 about 20 years ago

did the tune go to, 'with a knick, knack, paddy-wack, give-a-dog-a-bone, this old man came rolling home' by any chance?! :pac:

kiffer · 05-12-2008 4:17pm

dh2007 wrote: »

I suspect it's more prevalent in the country though, with Dubs dropping the 'th' sound more often than accidentally including it.

They're over compensating.
They don't want to drop 'th' sounds from words that have them so they cram in the extra 'h' where ever they think it might fit.

The same thing happens when people try avoid sounding common. Every word that starts with a vowel sound has a 'h' stuck on the front.

"Ello, 'ow are you today? Do you like your new office?"

Becomes

"hello, how are hayou today? Do hayou like hayour new hoffice?"

Of course this only happens to comic house keepers these days.

quad_red · 05-12-2008 4:21pm

A woman I work with says 'pacifically' allot.

If she didn't say it so much it wouldn't be an issue. But she does. And she's a Dub who will happily mock the way anyone else speaks.

SPECIFICALLY, damn you!

kiffer · 05-12-2008 4:24pm

dh2007 wrote: »

did the tune go to, 'with a knick, knack, paddy-wack, give-a-dog-a-bone, this old man came rolling home' by any chance?! :pac:

I don't think so...
This old man, he played one, he played knick-knack on my thumb?

kiffer · 05-12-2008 4:35pm

quad_red wrote: »

A woman I work with says 'pacifically' allot.

If she didn't say it so much it wouldn't be an issue. But she does. And she's a Dub who will happily mock the way anyone else speaks.

SPECIFICALLY, damn you!

Maybe she wants people to calm down and be more peaceful... Or to speak like people from the pacific islands. You should change accents each day till you get the right one. Also buy some grass skirts and pineapples. All information should be presented through the the medium of hula dancing.

blackbox · 05-12-2008 5:31pm

You'd be surprised at the number of contributors to the "Motors" forum whose cars have "breaks".

ashyle · 05-12-2008 6:15pm

Oh so many!

-The greengrocer apostrophe!! (There's a sign outside Arnotts of all places that says "LADIE'S WEAR" just... ugh...

- ALOT

-CHOOSE / CHOSE

- LOOSE / LOSE

- Saying should of rather than should have

- You're / Your

- their there and they're (just say it aloud people, it's easy!)

- It's /Its (admittedly it took me a while to understand it; it's means it is and its is possessive :pac: )

I should be a proofreader or something because I'm great at spotting other people's mistakes (just not my own..)

Nolanger · 05-12-2008 6:20pm

Waterford Film Festival always state some of their screened movies are World/Irish premiers.

Sam Vimes · 05-12-2008 6:33pm

gustavo wrote: »

I'm not too sure if you're right there :pac:

i haven't found a definitive source but have a look at these:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=there+are+a+lot+of&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=there%27s+a+lot+of&btnG=Search&meta=

all the ones with "there's" have a singular after the "lot of", e.g "it" and "rubbish" and all the ones with "there are" have plurals, e.g "women" and "monkeys". you had the plural "cars" so it should be "there are"

Tzetze · 05-12-2008 6:49pm

kiffer wrote: »

*sings*
You and me, me and you, lots and lots for us to do!

Does any one remember that childrens programme? I think it was on Channel 4 about 20 years ago

Yeah, I remember it. It was a BBC show... UB40 sang the theme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBbx9akJKjw

And on-topic... should/could/would of is particularly annoying.

nlgbbbblth · 05-12-2008 8:57pm

Is it impolite to correct a colleague's spelling or grammar?

The three usual situations are:

1) Letters that they intend sending to customers. Four of us share one printer so I often pick up correspondence that they have typed.

2) Internal emails sent to everybody in the office.

3) Conversations with me or other colleagues.

Some people think it's a petty thing to do and 'it doesn't really matter once the meaning is clear'.

Worst offences are stray / unnecessary apostrophes, badly constructed sentences and misuse of 'revert'.

Pherekydes · 05-12-2008 8:59pm

hullaballú wrote: »

That's correct, but you see, you've already included the full stop outside of the brackets. Where your quotation continues right through the end of a sentence and picks back up in the middle of the next (or another) sentence, you should ensure that there is an extra '.' in your elipse.

It's an ellipsis. And it only ever has three dots. It is used to indicate missing text. If the missing text contains the end of a sentence then the full stop is omitted, like the missing text.

Most hated grammatical error [Merged]

Comments