Grammatical correctness gone mad

18-09-2019 12:52am #1

Correcting other people's grammar is the lowest form of wit, to misquote another Irishman, nor is it particularly intelligent.

But since the medium of radio relies so heavily on the spoken word, it can be interesting to spot statements that sound correct, but are technically (or blunderingly) incorrect.

Let's get the ball rolling with a recent example.

Eoin Ó Broin was on RTÉ Drivetime this evening, warning that Government policy would result in "less developers developing less properties".

Few would deny that great intelligence lurks behind those pince-nez style glasses, but I think the man meant 'fewer', not 'less', developers/ properties.
As you know, 'less' pertains to a concept (e.g. less democracy), and 'fewer' pertains to countables (e.g. fewer trains)

Please post some examples or anecdotes of bad grammar that you've heard on radio.

In the interests of fairness, feel free to demonstrate any errors in this thread, but don't quote from the Radio Forum generally. (In other words, let's not be dicks)

Fanx

hognef · 18-09-2019 1:00am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Correcting other people's grammar is the lowest form of wit, to misquote another Irishman, nor is it particularly intelligent.

But since the medium of radio relies so heavily on the spoken word, it can be interesting to spot statements that sound correct, but are technically (or blunderingly) incorrect.

Let's get the ball rolling with a recent example.

Eoin Ó Broin was on RTÉ Drivetime this evening, warning that Government policy would result in "less developers developing less properties".

Few would deny that great intelligence lurks behind those pince-nez style glasses, but I think the man meant 'fewer', not 'less', developers/ properties.
As you know, 'less' pertains to a concept (e.g. less democracy), and 'fewer' pertains to countables (e.g. fewer trains)

Please post some examples or anecdotes of bad grammar that you've heard on radio.

In the interests of fairness, feel free to demonstrate any errors in this thread, but don't quote from the Radio Forum generally. (In other words, let's not be dicks)

Fanx

I feel like I should correct the use of 'nor' in your first sentence, but it's quite late already, so I won't.

18-09-2019 1:04am

hognef wrote: »

I feel like I should correct the use of 'nor' in your first sentence, but it's quite late already, so I won't.

I think you're right. I should first have used 'not' if I wanted to subsequently use 'nor', is that correct?

Please do correct. This is how we learn good!

endacl · 18-09-2019 1:22am

This is how we learn gooder.

:rolleyes:

18-09-2019 1:56am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think you're right. I should first have used 'not' if I wanted to subsequently use 'nor', is that correct?

Please do correct. This is how we learn good!

You use nor when you have already used neither, in the same way that you use either/or. Its basically a shortened negative version of "or"...... E. G.
Either you take that down or we're leaving.
If you don't take that down neither me nor John will stay the night

I think you are getting a little bit confused with the less and fewer though. You're right that fewer is only for something that's quantifiable. But 'trains' can fit the bill in both senses of the word...... E. G.
There are less trains in England than there are in Scotland, but Scotland has fewer 19000 locomotives in operation.

The lack of "10 items or fewer" checkouts in supermarkets is a particular bugbear of mine.

18-09-2019 2:16am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You use nor when you have already used neither, in the same way that you use either/or. Its basically a shortened negative version of "or"......

I'm slightly pulling your leg here. 'Nor' doesn't have to rely on 'neither', or vice versa; prior negation will sometimes be sufficient.

Anyway let's allow users to give some examples of grammatical mistakes before we proceed (that is, if anyone is still reading).

California Dreamer · 18-09-2019 2:25am

So your aim is to further contribute to the lowest form of wit?

As a radio mod do you not think you should use best practice and not rile up members to call out grammatical mistakes which will more than likely descend into petty insults and possibly personal attacks on said radio presenters?

Snickers Man · 18-09-2019 2:44am

I personally hate the now generally accepted use of the past participle for the words sit and stand in the imperfect (past continuous) tense.

eg "I was stood there", or "I was sat at the back"

To my ear they should be expressed as "I was standing there" or "I was sitting at the back". Alternatively one could say "I was seated.." in the latter example.

To me it sounds like ungrammatical Northern England dialect, typically found in the speech of characters from Coronation Street. But, the BBC now permits its use so I just have to suck it up as an example of a living language evolving to accept previously ungrammatical terms as valid because of widespread use.
But I still think it sounds wrong.

Another common occurrence, which I think is still a mistake is the "most well" construct.
eg "Ronaldo is the most well known footballer from Portugal"
Surely that should be "the best known footballer..."

or "Bill is the more well behaved of the twins" should be "Bill is the better behaved of the twins"

It appears all the time in print. And it sometimes makes an appearance in the spoken word on radio too.

dxhound2005 · 18-09-2019 8:48am

Snickers Man wrote: »

I personally hate the now generally accepted use of the past participle for the words sit and stand in the imperfect (past continuous) tense.

eg "I was stood there", or "I was sat at the back"

To my ear they should be expressed as "I was standing there" or "I was sitting at the back". Alternatively one could say "I was seated.." in the latter example.

To me it sounds like ungrammatical Northern England dialect, typically found in the speech of characters from Coronation Street. But, the BBC now permits its use so I just have to suck it up as an example of a living language evolving to accept previously ungrammatical terms as valid because of widespread use.
But I still think it sounds wrong.

Another common occurrence, which I think is still a mistake is the "most well" construct.
eg "Ronaldo is the most well known footballer from Portugal"
Surely that should be "the best known footballer..."

or "Bill is the more well behaved of the twins" should be "Bill is the better behaved of the twins"

It appears all the time in print. And it sometimes makes an appearance in the spoken word on radio too.

We know it's you, so you could have left out the Personally.

boombang · 18-09-2019 8:54am

Less also relates to continuous quantities, where as fewer relates to discrete quantities. Less sugar in your tea; fewer lumps if sugar in your tea.

dxhound2005 · 18-09-2019 8:57am

Deleted User wrote: »

You use nor when you have already used neither, in the same way that you use either/or. Its basically a shortened negative version of "or"...... E. G.
Either you take that down or we're leaving.
If you don't take that down neither me nor John will stay the night

I think you are getting a little bit confused with the less and fewer though. You're right that fewer is only for something that's quantifiable. But 'trains' can fit the bill in both senses of the word...... E. G.
There are less trains in England than there are in Scotland, but Scotland has fewer 19000 locomotives in operation.

The lack of "10 items or fewer" checkouts in supermarkets is a particular bugbear of mine.

Stephen Fry doesn't mind, but that is just his take on it.

Checkmate19 · 18-09-2019 8:59am

Op way to much time on their hands.

Snickers Man · 18-09-2019 9:12am

dxhound2005 wrote: »

We know it's you, so you could have left out the Personally.

Bloody pedant!

FishOnABike · 18-09-2019 9:26am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...If you don't take that down neither me nor John will stay the night ...

Should that be "neither John nor I"

HeidiHeidi · 18-09-2019 11:35am

One thing that I've noticed more and more of late is, for example

"The thing is, is that xyz...."

or

"What I'm saying is, is that xyz......"

I can't explain it very well, but it's that redundant comma and extra "is" - it sets my teeth on edge :mad:

18-09-2019 5:29pm

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

One thing that I've noticed more and more of late is, for example

"The thing is, is that xyz...."

or

"What I'm saying is, is that xyz......"

I can't explain it very well, but it's that redundant comma and extra "is" - it sets my teeth on edge :mad:

I think I do that :eek:

I think it's fine to break a convention if, in observing it, you are creating ambiguity or losing clarity.

Some of the worst writers have the best grammar. And sometimes breaking the rules can enhance clarity.

In horseriding, there is something called the 'half-halt'. It's difficult to define, but it's an almost-invisible pause in the middle of an exercise where you correct yourself (posture, position, breath, mind). It tells the horse "something is coming so pay attention", just like the unnecessary comma or refocus that you mention.

That's the closest example that comes to mind. I think English grammar needs to allow for a half-halt.

I do agree though, it can be annoying.

ButtersSuki · 19-09-2019 8:13am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Please post some examples or anecdotes of bad grammar that you've heard on radio.

Tune in to Mr. Joseph Duffy (who occasionally hosts a show on weekdays on RTE Radio 1) any day and you will hear dis, dat, dem, doze, I seen, I done, could of, should of, would of.....and countless other examples. He's never had any complaints either apparently, according to himself.

looksee · 19-09-2019 8:18am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm slightly pulling your leg here. 'Nor' doesn't have to rely on 'neither', or vice versa; prior negation will sometimes be sufficient.

Anyway let's allow users to give some examples of grammatical mistakes before we proceed (that is, if anyone is still reading).

Agreed about prior negation - but you did not have a prior negation.

plodder · 19-09-2019 10:59am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Eoin Ó Broin was on RTÉ Drivetime this evening, warning that Government policy would result in "less developers developing less properties".

No Sinn Féin TD is going to be heard saying "fewer developers developing fewer properties" - far too straight-laced and bourgeois, something you'd hear from an FG TD more like.

"should have went" is another SF atrocity, though I was surprised to see Michael McGrath of FF had said it when I went looking yesterday.

Grammatical correctness gone mad

Comments