BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling

Subject: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:04 AM

Poor spelling and bad grammar are becoming increasingly common.

When one comes across examples, see below,should one just ignore it or publish a correction?

Oh my, we have completely overlooked that WOW has past it's first birthday! We have also just reached an amazing 2500 followers, which is fantastic! THANK YOU!! Please continue to like and share our posts to support everything that is great about our town!

Not trying to be elitist, but I'm interested in the general feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:07 AM

missing spaces after commas really bug me

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:10 AM

Yes, me too. Thank you, I should have checked more carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM

You are, presumably, in the camp which advocates correcting every error.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM

WOW has past it's first birthday!

What, who, or why is WOW?

. . . support everything that is great about our town!

What town is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:04 AM



No, I make loads. Just a chance to point out that accidents happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

I also screw up and somehow lose the quote of the question being answered: You are, presumably, in the camp which advocates correcting every error

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:12 AM

Hi Uncle DaveO

The town really isn't important,it's just the use of 'past' rather than 'passed' and 'it's' instead of 'its' in the possessive.

I used these as examples from a Facebook page that I subscribe to and I wondered whether or not I should post a correction on the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:15 AM

Speaking personally, I'm always to be corrected, by someone who knows better than me, because that's the way that I learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:33 AM

There there be dragons.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:40 AM

As the great sir jOhn of 'ull used to say. this is a flok music site, not a spilling site.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:40 AM

"When one comes across examples, see below,should one just ignore it or publish a correction..."


"It"?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:43 AM

"... I'm always (ready?) to be corrected,.." ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 09:47 AM

Not really bothered by this in online chats and suchlike, but it really annoys me when it is some sort of official publication or other considered piece of writing. I am the sort who cannot watch a film such as "the pursuit of happyness" just because someone decided to spell it that way...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM

I have asked this on here before, and have yet to receive an answer: when exactly - or approximately - was this golden age in which people's spelling and grammar was so much superior to what they are today? (I suspect it was around the same time that you could trust everyone; children respected their elders; everyone worked as hard as they could; everyone drove the speed limit; and hookers had hearts of gold).

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 10:37 AM

WERE so much superior! See - they wouldn't have made that mistake back then, no sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:38 AM

Steve/Bill

Fair cop, gov.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:49 AM

Yes. Stupidity is alas usually permanent but ignorance is curable, in principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

It isn't the spelling that dismays me on Mudcat, it's the outlet for hate as used by Keith A of Hertford, Akenaton and starry pete..

None of the above are that good at spelling or grammar but trust me, that is a mere side issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM

I think it would be better than I (am)..also I am not sure why poor is in caps but maybe I am reading it wrong(ly)?.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:00 PM

Am I to presume, from the observation that most contributors seem to be picking up on all of my mistakes, however minor, that the general view is that mistakes should be corrected?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:18 PM

The problem with correcting the writing of others is that in the process one might make a mistake. That is quickly followed by the end of civilization as we know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM

That puts teachers in a hell of a quandary then, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,#
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:30 PM

Yep.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Mrrzy
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:39 PM

Teachers aren't in a quandary, we get to correct everything. Anybody seen the book Eats Shoots & Leaves on punctuation? It includes pages of commas and apostrophes you can peel off and stick where they belong on public signs, and crosses you can use to mark those that shouldn't be there...

I have been sorely tempted to use them!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM

I HATE fecking Eat Shoots and Leaves - it's over-weening smug pompous pedantry at its very worst. I LOVE the way language runs wild, free & feral in its natural habitat; I deplore Oxford Commas & love Grocers' Apostrophes.

This is a FOLKLORE site. Enjoy the living FOLKLORE of language & pragmatic usage. You should be out there COLLECTING it, not CORRECTING it.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:37 PM

"Fair cop, gov?" Would that be "fair cop, guv"?


:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 01:54 PM

Quite possibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Airymouse
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM

There was a time when "his" was used for "its:" "Love alone his love is keeping;" "the salt shall lose his flavor." I think we should extend this usage and use "his" as the sole possessive singular adjective. It would solve two problems. The apostrophe s usually denotes possessive singular, which is why "its" and "it's" are confused. "His" and "it's" would be less confusing. Also you wouldn't have people using "their" or worse "his or her" for "his." I would appreciate it if some mudcat from Northern England would initiate this change, for people from this region are remarkably successful in making changes to our language. Surely you will grant that changing "heighth" to height" was even wackier than what I propose. No one would countenance widt breadt dept girt ...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:32 PM

If the meaning is clear, what's the point, beyond potentially impacting a relationship/discussiin in a negative way? If you are confident a correction would be welcome, no harm to offer it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM

Discussiin?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 03:05 PM

Got to admit that I is not too clever at proper grammar like.   Mind you some of them that is, cannot tell the difference between an opposing viewpoint and hate speech !.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 04:28 PM

DaveO, it's an online game/community for youngsters. Youngsters want to be cool, not right in the traditional sense.

Mistakes are mistakes.

Bad habits by those who know better are a different thing. For example, I think TV and radio professionals should refrain from using "you know" as a fill-in phrase. If I knew, I would not want to be told again.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:35 PM

I (usually) get along reasonably well with my ex-wife, but recently she voiced a complaint that I had corrected her grammar and spelling whenever she was wrong. I don't remember this. I thought I was always diplomatic even when she said things that made me cringe.

Oh, well, I suppose one can't have an ex-wife and not expect some criticism...

After 10 years of being single, I married a woman who had perfect grammar. Problem solved.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 08:48 PM

I expect that most posts to the Mudcat spring from computers at home so abbreviations and incomplete sentences are not as evident but responses to many posts as on Facebook or news articles sound as if they were texted on brainy phones. Punctuation and capitals on phones take an extra step or two so many people don't bother. I am attempting to accept that

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket sans originality
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 02:20 AM

I left school without passes in English or indeed any exam that is narrative led. I just had maths, physics, chemistry, technical drawing and oddly, music.

I have had to learn different writing skills as an adult in my own way rather than an education route, yet bad spelling and overtly bad grammar leap out of the page at me when reading.

I wrote many papers and had reports published over the years and it amazes me that when proof reading colleagues' work, it was generally agreed that mine had fewer language mistakes than most. Most of my colleagues took A level English and many took it to degree level.

Yet to this day, I don't think I actually know what a split infinitive is...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:20 AM

I think doing poetry at school encourages unclear English that can be hard to translate. People who are fluent in English but don't have it as their first language often write more clearly.

I failed English Literature but was quite good at the pulling sentences to bits part of English.

My fingers have a mind of there own and tend to type phonetically.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:18 AM

"There"?



:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:22 AM

It isn't too difficult to actually find out what a split infinitive is, Musket. ;-)

In fact, you can't split a infinitive because, technically, the word "to" does not form part of the infinitive.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:25 AM

"There"?

Consider the enclosing sentence - joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:32 AM

I'm sure I a) can and b) must have done so at some point or other.

Unlike names of Sheffield Wednesday managers post war to present, it hasn't stayed in the old head.

Which is odd because a few months ago when learning a new song, I sat and listed all the songs I could perform from memory, both the singing and instrumentation and it was over 200.

Obviously not something I thought important then!

(When I met my father in law for the first time, he asked me over a coffee about my research and I happened to mention that the principles of my work in mechanical vibration hold true all the way back to the principia.

I said "prinSipia" and he used "prinKipia."

Obviously something about studying the classics...)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:55 AM

I said "prinSipia" and he used "prinKipia."

You should have called the whole thing off.



Consider the enclosing sentence - joke.

That's what they all say!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 10:15 PM

@Kampervan
If it is just a single FaceBook shout like FaceBook What's* On Whitstable I wouldn't bother with a correction.

But if it was their 'About' page which they are hoping thousands might read I think a well phrased private message might be in order.
"...visitors to Whitstable. With aim to bring you the latest news about all that is happening in and around Whitstable." doesn't sound right to me. There are a couple of other things on that page too I think.

* this must pain you every time you every time you get a notification or do you manage to look only at the logo!

! I just felt obliged to correct at least three errors in my own typing and grammar. It is a shame when sensitivity makes us too nervous to open our mouths.

You might need to talk your way on to the committee.... or find you're dragged on screaming and kicking??

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:18 AM

We have some good friends here on Mudcat who are dyslexic.

So if you see an occasional error Mudcat etiquette says that you should just ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:32 AM

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket sans Latin influence
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:39 AM

Aye and we have some whose posts can't be explained by dyslexia. And I don't mean typos.

Steve. - Fair point. Mixing with the hoi poloi these days, I should have taken a harder line when he started talking men talk before the ladies retired to the lounge for sewing and music.

Mind you, I like this middle class gig. When my lads were young, I'd amuse them by shouting "Mint sauce!" at lambs in the fields. My granddaughter has to put up with me shouting "Rosemary and garlic!"

Any road up. If Al is reading this, I'm at the Weymouth fish festival today. Be nice to bump into thee.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:54 AM

The 'Huh?' was aimed at the post about whatever it was about, not the one not about whatever it was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:04 AM

I don't care how people write - grammatically or otherwise - on a social forum like Mudcat. (What they write is a different matter).

In a different environment - before I retired from the day job - I was responsible for a great deal of staff recruitment and, over the course of many years, read thousands of application forms from prospective employees. I didn't do this on my own but always involved the person who would be the line manager of the person in the post, plus another senior member of staff from a different section. All in the interests of fairness, and all part of the recruitment policy.

One thing that caused regular comment and discussion, and occasional disagreement, was the presentation of the application form and the quality of the spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. My contention was that a well presented, neat and correctly spelled application - setting out what the person could bring to the job and why they wanted it, etc., etc. - was one indicator of their potential approach to work. Others felt - also quite rightly - that the content of the application was paramount, and that sloppy grammar and spelling could be discounted to a certain extent.

And, to a certain extent, we were all right! All indicators had to be taken into consideration, and it was, in the end, perfectly feasible to forgive some presentation errors if other and more important qualities shone through.

To put all that into context - just to show that we were weren't a bunch of nitpicking bores - I should point out that, for a single post advertised, we usually had between 100-150 applications. We had to try to bring this down to a shortlist of a maximum of 6-8 people - any more than this number was often difficult to manage - and we had to be able to justify our choices should any of the unselected applicants feel like phoning up and asking why they hadn't been shortlisted.

It was sometimes heartbreaking to have to reject good (and often desperate) people, but there was just one post available. Tougher than the judgement of Solomon - at least he only had to choose between two possibilities!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket recruiting
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:31 AM

I may have mentioned before.

We have an education system in The UK. There is no reason why people cannot at least ensure spelling is checked on application forms.

I have been in Will's position many times. When sifting and long listing, poor applications mean they don't care enough so I cared just about enough to ensure their application was filed under B1n.

Oh, and the interview. If you got an interview.. Try going up at the end of sentences and see if I offer you the job or not.

Trawling through patient notes, as I used to do all the time, I used to shake my head at the fact that nursing is supposed to be a graduate profession these days. Considering a degree in anything is supposed to be recognition of being able to learn and coherently assess what you learn, I have views that nursing school Deans got both barrels when I "went off on one." The older I get, the more I question education. I left school with no English exam passes but I soon learnt that if you want to get on, try to impress.

Funnily enough, I am possibly coming out of retirement if a meeting next week works for me. One of the first tasks will be to recruit to a number of posts. Oh joy.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 06:51 AM

It is a shame when sensitivity makes us too nervous to open our mouths.

That's a very good point. Generally, I put some effort into what I type and check it over before sending (though my eyesight lets me down at times when it comes to Mudcat's little typing box). Posting in a forum sits awkwardly somewhere between formal writing and informal chat. It's a conversation in which our words are cemented on to a page rather than allowed to fly off into the ether, as they would if we were all down the pub, for example. I'd only pick up on errors if the guilty party was a pompous ass who was criticising my errors (where's Sailor Jack when you need him...? :-) ), or when someone starts a thread bemoaning poor English who then (almost inevitably) exhibits examples of it himself in his own posts, though occasionally a post may look so sloppy as to be almost rude. We also need to remember that spoken language moves on a lot faster than written, so, when we're here, are we writing to each other or are we speaking to each other? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM

If I want assistance in grammar and spelling, I ask for someone fond of red pens to proof read for me and am grateful for the time they spend doing so. I'm also happy to be corrected where appropriate, as it's useful for future reference. If I've spent time to compose something other than a dashed off bit of conversation on social media, then I don't usually *need* the red pen; though it's always a good insurance policy for anything that actually matters. If I'm just chatting on social media I will make mistakes and not care about it; I certainly can't be bothered to take time rereading posts like this, to ensure that I've not got an apostrophe in the wrong place or used 'too' instead of 'to'. It's not my concern if my mistakes annoy other people, just so long as the content is understandable. I imagine there are a good number of people who treat informal conversational kinds of writing similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM

I bet you checked that one, though. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

I usually edit as I type and spot mistakes as they appear. The degree of rushdness - or how many glasses of wine - will often determine whether I spot them and edit before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:31 PM

And, then there is legibility in many doctors perscriptions. Such poorly written drug requests often leave pharmacists in doubt as to what is being perscribed. It is as if highly-trained doctors don't ven want to take the time to write important information clearly. Maybe they write in such a lazy manner to piss off pharmacists, or merely to defy their previous English teachers from grade three?

Thankfully, some doctirs now utilize computers to print out typed perscriptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

I hate to point a little something out to you, Guest, but it's...oh, never mind....

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

"Pre", of course, Mr. Shwa?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,6.24
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 01:08 PM

To be honest guest I think he meant the illegible thing.No harm, but does rise a smile.We all do it,it's karmic a lot of times too.8)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM

OK, there were two, find another and the round of beer is on Shaw:)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM

often leave pharmacists in doubt

Is that GPs and high street pharmacists or hospital doctors and pharmacists ?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM

Take your pick, cousin guest;)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:41 PM

Alternatively, note that 97% of UK prescriptions were, by last March, electronic. (Source PPA)

That said, lazy scripting used to be a legitimate mistake and near miss concern up till recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:52 PM

Mrs GUEST says that the pharmacist will piss off the prescriber by querying the prescription. GUEST was once, many years ago, handed one back across the counter with "I'm sorry I can't dispense on this". Presciber was really pissed when that message was passed on (he thought it would be taken to the pharmacy two doors down).

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM

pissed off

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 05:53 AM

I once received a Facebook message, two days after my Birthday. It stated, "delayted Birthday Wishes". LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Mo the caller
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM

It's all too easy to make a mistake when typing, even though I know when to use there, their, they're, etc.
So I wouldn't correct anyone else.
When I use a 'quote' button in my reply I might respell a word, or I might not.
Some errors do really trip the reader up though, it can be hard to understand a post.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 12:59 AM

I see posting as essentially conversational rather than formal documents. If you you were to correct people's grammar and poor phrasing as they spoke it would be extremely offensive and you would rapidly lose friends.

So I think you should never correct these slips unless people are demonstrably confused, and even then tact should be used. To take a specific example: on a recent thread someone referred to "a small majority" when they meant "a small minority". There was certainly scope for misunderstanding but everyone realised what was meant so it went uncorrected, and I think rightly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 05:11 AM

On another board, I've just spotted a message, from a male correspondent, claiming that men are more intelligent than women (!) The message contains gross spelling mistakes (e.g. "ime" for I'm) and is completely un-punctuated. I could have commented - but that would have involved setting up an account and logging-in etc., and I really couldn't be bothered. Nevertheless, I would have relished picking that moron up on his spelling and grammar!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 06:06 AM

It's very tempting, Shimrod with people like that. Their lack of attention to good English is extra evidence of their overall idiocy, and, just occasionally, it could be deemed appropriate, if a bit mischievous, to use it against 'em! We're only human, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 06:08 AM

Yes and I know there should have been a comma after "Shimrod"!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:04 AM

Steve, if all your sentences were like that second one I would stop reading your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 10:15 AM

Well it was correct, though perhaps a bit on the labyrinthine side, I suppose. I'll try less hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 10:49 AM

You could have got away with that, Steve, I didn't notice!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 07:08 PM

Yet to this day, I don't think I actually know what a split infinitive is...


.... to (learn and) coherently assess ....


Assuming these two extracts are from the same Musket, there you have it.

Not criticising or even commenting - just pointing it out.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:37 PM

My general feeling as a moderate dyslexic is that the improvement of this forum by adding a spell check has been paramount.

Grammatical mistakes are often the result of incomplete editing and failing to proof read.

For those who make up their own syntax I say let it be. Polite indications of correcting someone's means of expression should be in in the form of a question such as "did you mean to say?".

I bet half of the ungrammatical examples here are intentional as in a take off of a dialect.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:00 PM

Split infinitives, insofar as they exist at all (they don't because "to" is not part of the infinitive) are not incorrect and never have been. The best thing is to just get on and to freely use them with abandon.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:57 PM

Are we not trusted or allowed to edit for a missing word or run on sentence due to a technical reason, or because of some sort of feared reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket stuttering
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:12 AM

I take it Doug was off school when irony was taught?
😎

This Musket has A levels in language and literature but tends to prefer reading the other Musket's posts for ease of text than my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 04:31 AM

I take it Doug was off school when irony was taught?

Yeah. That's why my shirts always looked so creased.
?;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 05:51 AM

It's OK Steve, I doubt I am the only one appreciating your examples without comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:23 AM

When I was at school 3 score years ago, spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPG) were drummed into us daily. Also my mother was a English teacher, and would read through my homework to make sure I'd got all the SPG correct.
When my kids, now in their 30s, were at school, it seemed it didn't matter any more. I once asked my daughter's primary teacher why she hadn't corrected my daughter's mistakes. "Oh, we have to let them express themselves, you know". Well thanks, but neither of them have ever caught up, and still don't know all the "rules" of SPG.
My husband is moderately dyslexic, so I do quite a lot of proof-reading for him, as he writes a lot of official reports. I've written him a guide to usage of apostrophes but he still doesn't get it!
I am not too bothered by errors in posts on Mudcat, but I do think it is important to get official documents for publication correct, and it does annoy me to see such publications littered with errors on occasion. Even designing our Folk Festival brochure, it can do with 3 pairs of eyes reading through it to spot any errors of SPG or fact, or inconsistencies of formatting.
And you can turn Apple's very annoying auto-correct predictive text off!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:18 AM

"It's OK Steve, I doubt I am the only one appreciating your examples without comment."

In that case, I intend to completely desist from providing any more, as I have no desire to constantly annoy everyone. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:20 AM

Ahah, "irony". Don't get me started...:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 10:30 AM

To constantly annoy.....
or

Constantly to annoy.....

We've probably reached the point now where the split infinitive ( if such a thing exist) is the accepted, even preferred, version.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:24 AM

The rule against not splitting an infinitive was always a red herring - an artifical and silly construct invented by grammatists with a Latin background. It was roundly debunked by the Plain English Society and similar organisations many years ago.

"To boldly go..." is a perfectly acceptable construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:30 AM

By the way, my yardstick for writing clear, plain, understandable English is George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English language" from 1946, which you may read here.

His six rules:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I particularly like Rule no. 6!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:55 PM

And, apart from never starting a sentence with a conjunction, avoid cliches like the plague.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 01:23 PM

""Better late than pregnant""

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,bbc
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:39 PM

I just ordered a teeshirt that reads as follows:

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

Punctuation saves lives!


Love it!

(I realize this is punctuation, rather than spelling.)

Best,

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM

While I don't correct incorrect spelling or grammar, I do notice it, but have come to accept it without dwelling on it. I still haven't gotten used to seeing, "I could care less," though.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 10:45 AM

What can be really annoying is when you write something correctly, and it gets "corrected" into something that is wrong - especially when the computer does the "correcting".

I don't think anyone has pointed out that "the hoi polloi" , which has turned up in at least one post, is strictly speaking a solecism, since hoi means the, so you are saying "the the many". But that's one case where I tend to think the wrong version actually sits better in English than the right one.

There's a distinction between mistakes that don't mess up the meaning, and those which do - such as the one demonstrated in the title of "eats, shoots and leaves".

The one time perhaps when it's always justified to be a stickler for accuracy is when picking up grammatical or syntactical errors made in the course of correcting others.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Airymouse
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 11:59 AM

I admit that I carefully avoid "the hoi" polloi, but I've always been bothered by the reason. Had I said to you, "I'll meet you in the alcove," would you have said, in the original language "al" meant "the" so you should have said, "I'll meet you in alcove?"

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: mayomick
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 02:09 PM

proofread - one word.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM

While I don't correct incorrect spelling or grammar, I do notice it, but have come to accept it without dwelling on it. I still haven't gotten used to seeing, "I could care less," though.

Though you're OK with "haven't gotten". Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 07:06 PM

"Hoi polloi" actually means the riff-raff, the plebs. Interesting that so many people believe, erroneously, that it means the exact opposite. Maybe "hoi" sounds a bit like "high"...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 08:39 PM

Will Fly.: We could add these to Orwell's 6 Rules:

• Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
• Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
• And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
• It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
• Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.)
• Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
• Be more or less specific.
• Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
• Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
• No sentence fragments.
• Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
• Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
• Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
• One should NEVER generalise.
• Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
• Don't use no double negatives.
• Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
• One-word sentences? Eliminate.
• Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
• The passive voice is to be ignored.
• Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
• Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
• DO NOT use exclamation points and all caps to emphasise!!!
• Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
• Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
• Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
• Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
• If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
• Puns are for children, not groan readers.
• Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
• Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
• Who needs rhetorical questions?
• Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
• The passive voice should never be used.
• Do not put statements in the negative form.
• Verbs have to agree with their subjects.
• A writer must not shift your point of view.
• Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.
• Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
• If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
• Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.
• Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
• Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.
• Always pick on the correct idiom.
• The adverb always follows the verb.
• Be careful to use the rite homonym.
• Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM

I've never come across "hoi polloi" used in the sense Steve gives there, as meaning posh. Not that it's an expression that crops up that often in conversation. LOf course words do shift - at one time "snob" had more or less the same meaning as "common".

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

If you look into it, Kevin, you'll see that it's commonly misused.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:28 PM

I sometimes use "hoi polloi" in conversation and always in the sense of mixing with the masses/crowd/rank and file. It's not so commonly misused that I have ever heard it meaning the opposite until now.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:36 PM

We're such an erudite bunch here. Yeah, that'll be it!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:40 PM

Wasn't it an offal restaurant Adrian Mole worked in?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 01:40 PM

I don't doubt you must have come across the term used that way Steve. But I suspect it's pretty unusual.

Actually the general use, with its sneering overtones, is a distortion in itself. All the Greek means is "the people" or "the majority", no implication of the contempt it has come to imply. A pretty despicable term these days really.

There was a Glasgow punk band called Oi Polloi, which I suppose constituted reclaiming it as an honourable label.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:19 PM

If I was erudite, I might understand what Musket's reference to offal and Adrian Mole had to do with this thread. But then again, I'm easily confused.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket reading
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 02:45 AM

Don't bother trying Doug. You'd have to get someone to read out to you the Secret Diaries books in order to understand.

It's just that some on Mudcat are intelligent and well read. I was aiming it at them, you dozy chuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 03:26 AM

As far as the use of English is concerned,one thing that has annoyed me for a long time now is the term 'for free'.

Surely something is either 'free' or it is 'for nothing'.

However, I suspect that I might have to get used to what is now commonplace.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 05:21 AM

And what about "pre-ordering" and "pre-booking"?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:54 AM

Re-double our efforts!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 11:56 AM

I've never heard or read of "hoi polloi" being used as anything but the common people, the lumpen masses.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 04:46 PM

I've always understood hoi-polloi to mean the masses or the general public.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 05:05 PM

From DMG..."So I think you should never correct these slips unless people are demonstrably confused, and even then tact should be used. To take a specific example: on a recent thread someone referred to "a small majority" when they meant "a small minority". There was certainly scope for misunderstanding but everyone realised what was meant so it went uncorrected, and I think rightly so."

Well spotted sir! I hoped that no one had noticed.
Probably everyone noticed and showed the better spirit....Thanks all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 04:22 PM

"Advanced booking" seems to be creeping in now instead of advance booking or advance sales. That would be in contradistinction to "elementary (or even intermediate) booking"?
Oh, and re my post above on 15th July: took delivery of the new Folk Festival brochure today, having not had anything to do with the production of it this year. The chairman confirmed that there had been the usual "3 pairs of eyes" checking it, but it still fell to the printer to point out a missed error on the first page!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 15 - 05:25 PM

The very worst one is .....they're sat here, I'm sat here, you're sat here!.....Heard it today from a BBC reporter.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM

PHJim said: "While I don't correct incorrect spelling or grammar, I do notice it, but have come to accept it without dwelling on it. I still haven't gotten used to seeing, "I could care less," though."

Though you're OK with "haven't gotten". Heheh.
****************************************************************
According to The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, these are acceptable:

• Mikey always gets to pitch, but my son hasn't gotten to play at all.
• I don't know about that store -- I've never gotten anything there that really lasted.
• I'll start the report tomorrow; I haven't gotten the bills done yet.
One could also use got with the last one above (though not with the first two); however, it would have a slightly different sense, focussing on the resultant state, a paraphrase of
• I haven't got (= don't have) the bills in a finished state yet.
rather than the simple negation of the work with gotten.
*****************************************************************

This doesn't mean that I think that I am correct, but, Steve Shaw, could you please explain my error. I'm not sure I understand the proper distinction between got and gotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Airymouse
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 05:57 PM

I remember having an altercation with my English professor about this very issue. He was a good teacher and he was probably right to prefer "got" to "gotten" in the context we were discussing, probably an essay I had written and was trying to defend. I said, "Well OK from now on it's "Moon for the Misbegot", "His only begot son","While I pondered weak and weary over many a quaint and curious volume of forgot lore." Alas, I have forgot(ten) how he responded.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 06:01 PM

Had I thought you were in error I would have said so. In fact, "gotten" is not, as I read somewhere, an Americanism. It was a good old English word that fell out of use hundreds of years ago but which has continued to be used in American English. I can think of "ill-gotten gains" but of no other usage of the word in British English. As a typical Brit confronted by American English I was being a bit provocative, that's all. Mind you, PHJim, all this assumes that you are American. If you're British, and you use "gotten", it marks you out as being pretentious. But not wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jul 15 - 06:08 PM

I don't think that misbegotten, begotten and forgotten are in any way comparable to stand-alone "gotten". In any case, anyone may use "gotten" without fear of being wrong, though, in the UK, if you do use it you may be considered to be a bit of a bellend unless you have an American accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:04 AM

Steve, I'm a Canuck. We use British spelling, but our speech is closer to American.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 09:53 AM

There isn't any 'correct distinction' between got and gotten.

Americans tend to use more archaic forms than Brits do. 'gotten' is older.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:03 AM

Which is what I'm saying. Anyway, PHJim, Canucks are just northern North Americans, aren't they?       [ducks...]

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 10:09 AM

Bill Bryson wrote an excellent book comparing American with UK English, noting the many British words and spellings that went over in Elizabethan times that evolved differently.

Putting "en" on the end of a word is still widely used colloquially around here. Here being a small part of a county. Other places too.

Anyone from the West Country may sympathise with the song Adge Cutler wrote about backing your car / tractor / horse and cart into where you can't get it back out again. "You've gotten where you cassen backen hasn't!"

Language evolves. People do too, some faster than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 11:54 AM

""Canucks are just northern North Americans, aren't they?""

Nah, Canadians are more like boring British folks, than wacky Americans;)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM

I have found that Canuckistanis have a slightly more enhanced tendency to understand jokes than yanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 12:11 PM

"I have found that Canuckistanis have a slightly more enhanced tendency to understand jokes than yanks."

Or, as being boringly-nice, they mostly fake an understanding of jokes. Ask your wife, it's like those fake moans. Disgusting behavior on both fronts, I'd say.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:33 PM

You sound rather frustrated/cynical. Actually, I find both Canadians and yanks, at least the many I've met, to be unfailingly nice people and never boring. Now the joke thing, that's different...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 01:58 PM

Terms like fustrated, cynical, boring and nice are all relative.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 06:54 PM

Not at all. To me, they have precise meanings.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:04 PM

"To me"

Well yes, of course they have precise meaning to "you", yourself and I.
No surprises.
Fortunately, that circle of influence is very small, possibly no larger than the area of the comfy chair you sit in.
;)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 07:07 PM

Take your uncalled-for poison elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Jul 15 - 08:22 PM

Get, Got, Gotten.
Okay, for most purposes these words grate on my sensibilities.
I understand 'Get' as meaning 'fetch' or 'go and fetch', not as statements of possession.
So "I've got that" means "I have been and fetched that". I may have used it as a child, as with card collections "Oh, I've already got that one" But "I've" is a contraction of "I have" so "I've got" (unless referring to fetching) means "I have have". This is somewhat tautologous.
I am, however, happy to accept a hymn starting "Of the Father's love begotten" on the basis that I've been brought up with it, and it is of a different era.

Having typed this, I'm a little surprised to find that although some uses annoy me, I'm happy with others.

Oh well, maybe I'm human!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 12:34 PM

"Get outa here!"

"Fetch outa here!"

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 03:35 PM

PHJim:
Now you're tempting me to accept more uses of the word.

"Get thee behind me Satan!"

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 25 Jul 15 - 06:38 PM

In the schoolyard of my childhood, the phraseology employed in the review of 'card collections' was direct and succinct:

Got it!
Got it!
Don't got it!
Got it!
etc.

(I also recall squabbles which, in retrospect, were Shakespearian:

'Tis so!
'Tis not!
'Tis so!
'Tis not!
repeated ad nauseum or until the outbreak of fisticuffs).

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:42 AM

I was reprimanded by..... for saying that, "I am presently, an atheist."

Was he correct.......given that I am, presently, an atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 08:10 AM

If, you don't get to it
When you get at it
You won't get to it
To get at it again

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 09:51 AM

When said after a joke, "get" means "understand".

"Do you get it?"

"get laid" is another common usage of "get".

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:40 AM

I was reprimanded by..... for saying that, "I am presently, an atheist."

Several things: your incorrect use of commas; your pretentious use of "presently" when better alternatives are available; and your apparent vacillation over whether you're an atheist or not. Apart from all that, it's fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 10:44 AM

Their butt four thee grays of gawed, go the.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 12:08 PM

Well Steve, I can't help noticing that you rarely use commas at all, which often makes your posting indecipherable.

I think "presently" in that context, is the most proper linguistically, as I may in the future embrace the Christian faith.
Which words do you think would be better suited?

I never vacillate.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:47 PM

"A wise man's goal shouldn't be to say something profound, but to say something useful." 

Criss Jami

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM

"The World is so beautiful, but alas! There are so many assholes." 
― M.F. Moonzajer

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 04:56 PM

"You sound rather frustrated/cynical. Actually, I find both Canadians and yanks, at least the many I've met, to be unfailingly nice people and never boring. Now the joke thing, that's different..."

"Not at all. To me, they have precise meanings."

There you are. Two out of the last three of my posts in this thread, from a man who "rarely uses commas at all". Anything else you want to tell us that we can all utterly rely on to be truthful and accurate?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:13 PM

"I suppose this is a trivial matter but I do want to object to the maddening fuss-fidget punctuation which one of your editors is attempting to impose on my story. I said it before but I'll say it again, that unless necessary for clarity of meaning I would prefer a minimum of goddamn commas, hyphens, apostrophes, quotation marks and fucking (most obscene of all punctuation marks) semi-colons. I've had to waste hours erasing that storm of flyshit on the typescrip."
― Edward Abbey

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 05:24 PM

Abbey probably sent it to The New Yorker. See Between You and Me: Confessions of a Comma Queen by Mary Norris.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 06:56 PM

"Gotten" still used in Scotland. Certainly here in the Borders. Wouldn't think of it as an Americanism if I heard it. Likewise "pinkie" for little finger which is something else often described as an Americanism which is normal usage here.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jul 15 - 07:57 PM

It's funny how some archaic forms survive in certain regions. Allan mentions "gotten", a long-lost Middle English word, as thriving in the Borders. Up in t' north of England, we still cling to thee, thou, dost and hast (with dropped h, of course!)