We must stop correcting grammar

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia
Date: 01 Dec 17 - 11:03 AM

Different isn't automatically ignorant. Some people simply use older forms of the word than others. This is particularly likely with past participles.

Y-clept, for example.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 17 - 08:20 PM

I'm not saying that different has to be ignorant. But it can be. Saying "albeit" instead of "but," "though" or "although" is not only highly pretentious but is also ignorant. Same with "prior to," which is equally pretentious and which is easily replaced every time with "before." I can't be doing with idiots writing in English who interpose the word "seisiun" for "session." They're just trying, and failing, to be clever and exclusive. It's a bloody session fer chrissake, unless you're writing in Irish. The misuse of "ironic" on Mudcat is frequent and appalling. "Comprised of" is bloody awful. "Acquiesce to" is just horrible. And if you can't pronounce it as a word, such as NATO or Aids, it isn't a bloody acronym. BBC is not an acronym. And what about horrors such as "ie, "e.t.c.", "ect", and "eg"?

I could easily go on ad nauseum.

Shit.

Innit.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 04:14 AM

On the other hand, Steve, if you keep saying / writing the same word, "but... but... but...", you may come across as sounding ignorant. I use albeit not out of pretentiousness (if you think I'm sometimes haughty, I'm no more pretentious than you! ;-) ), but as a variation to constant buts. I'll reconstruct a sentence so that I can "However, ..." rather than "..., although" again. And if you think there's a technical difference 'twixt (does that get me in trouble? ;-) ) albeit & but I'm curious to know what it is. My OED gives He was making progress, albeit rather slowly as an example of its use. Substitute "but" & there is absolutely no change in meaning.

Jim - I'd agree. The BBC has been slipping in both their standard of English & of journalism for a couple of decades. Oddly enough, that red-top turd, Phil McNumpty as Chief Sports Writer was employed in July 2000 - coincidence? I think not! Whilst I consider it a good thing that Auntie is no longer in hock to plummy voices & Received Pronunciation, the standard of English is another matter. And they are hugely influential, I think! The number of their journalists who publish articles & are then picked up by readers on basic factual errors; who are too busy trying to be too clever & trendy & up-to-date & to invent new buzzwords; who can't tell the difference between affect / effect, ensure / insure, "step foot" instead of "set foot" is one that's crept in lately that pisses me off (as I commented here in another thread)! And they all seem to rely on spell-checkers instead of actual proof reading these days!!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 05:24 AM

"Prior to" is a perfectly good alterntative to "before". Variety is the spice of life.


DC

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 06:33 AM

I don't agree, Raedwulf. If you're having trouble with repeating your buts you simply have to go to the effort of redrafting your sentence. No need to cling to your cherished first construction. Doug, same with you. Variety can be achieved by using different forms of words instead of scrabbling around among inelegant alternative words. "Prior to" is just awful every time.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 06:36 AM

I don't object to 'albeit'. I can put up with 'prior to'. But I get really irritated when people say 'post' instead of 'after' or 'since'.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 06:45 AM

There is nothing inelegant or pretentious about "prior to". It's just part of the rich vocabulary that the English language offers.

DC

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 08:12 AM

There is absolutely no circumstance in which "prior to" needs to be used in place of the beautiful and elegant "before." If you disagree, I challenge you to present me with an example of a context that demands it and disallows "before." It's an ugly monstrosity, rarely used prior to the twentieth century, albeit I can't claim that it's wrong. It looks ugly in writing and it sounds pretentious in speech. Bin it!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM

*gasp* Pretentious 'albeit' instead of plain old 'but'?! I think we are being teased by Mr Shaw! ;-)

As if to prove me & Jim right about the BBC, though, we have (from an article about our French-blocked accession to the EEC, as was), "It may seem hard to imagine, at a time when the business of getting out of the EU dominates the headlines, but back then you could hardly pick up a newspaper without finding a story about the UK's desperate efforts to get in.

As far as I can discover, no-one thought to call it "Brexin"."

Errr, well, no, because back in 1967 there 1) wasn't a journalistic obsession which stupid & ghastly portmanteau buzzwords & 2) it would have been "Britin", you bloody moron!

And BBC journalism & English slide a little further downhill... :/

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 08:58 AM

I used the two horrors in question on purpose. Wasn't it obvious?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 09:02 AM

Well, yes. That's why I acknowledged it! :p

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 09:40 AM

It is people not correcting others that leads to idiocies like Literally now being defined as Figuratively.

I also correct vocabulary, but usually with the line I do not think that word means what you think it means, said in an accent so people might recognize the reference.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 10:47 AM

Steve,
I accept that I don't need to use "prior to" instead of "before" but I can if I want to - and, if I choose to, I will.

Whichever one is chosen, the result will be equally understandable with no possible ambiguity. To this end, they both serve to communicate the message. One is not right and the other wrong. They are just alternatives.

Many words have synonyms which express the same idea. One man's pail is another man's bucket.

DC

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 11:25 AM

Surely, Doug, one man's Pale is another man's Light? Although it'd better not be, or there'll be fisticuffs! :o Oh, sorry, not the beer thread. I got confused... ;-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 11:53 AM

Can I have a bucket of pail ale please?

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 12:22 PM

I'm not a xenophobic nationalist...

But something inside me cannot tolerate Americanisms invading and obliterating our own traditional rich heritage of British slang and swearing...
Eff off back to yankeeland "Butt" "Mofo" F*g" "Dooood",
and all the rest of those irritating cultural pollutants..
.. and shove yer pathetic middle finger where it can never be seen again...

The glorious British two finger salute will always look the more powerful and defiant...!!!!!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 12:42 PM

If you're not careful, Mr Gnome, it'll be a bouquet of pale ail! ;-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 12:53 PM

Nice one Raedwulf :-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 03:58 PM

Indeed, Doug. As I said, it isn't a rule. But one is elegant, beautiful and traditional and the other is an ugly, recent upstart trying to do a job that is already being very well done. Why be perverse and choose the latter!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 04:20 PM

What I don't understand, Steve, is why it upsets you so but we all have our on views. Let's leave it that you hate it and I don't.

I'll offer you a couple of others for consideration:
   "Of all time" for "ever";

       "At this moment in time" for "now"

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 04:29 PM

I challenge you to present me with an example of a context that demands it and disallows "before." It's an ugly monstrosity, rarely used prior to the twentieth century, albeit I can't claim that it's wrong. It looks ugly in writing and it sounds pretentious in speech. Bin it!
The abbot asked the prior to take morning Mass. :)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 04:36 PM

Yes, Nigel, I was expecting someone to come up with that one!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 04:45 PM

I'm not upset and I don't hate it, Doug. I just wonder why anyone bothers with it. I've resigned meself to the fact that this offence against elegant English has become standard.

"At this moment in time" is just silly, though I suspect it's often used to buy a couple of seconds' thinking time for its user.

Other pointless constructions are "If I'm honest," "I have to say" and "To be fair." Know what I mean?

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 07:51 PM

Seen in big blue illuminated letters across the front of one of Edinburgh's art galleries today: "EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT".......no, I'm not shouting: it just was in capitals, but I did groan!

Another word which gets littered about needlessly is "basically": in some people's speech it goes "prior to" every sentence! (And I've just deleted "that" and changed it to "which").

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 07:55 PM

Well groaned! And you've just reminded me of yet another horror, "on a daily basis." Horrible!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 08:01 PM

"going forward"

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 17 - 08:35 PM

A raft of measures.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos
Date: 03 Dec 17 - 07:14 AM

I am slightly amused when people say "he/she turned round and said ...".

But I have an irrational hatred of people who describe something or someone as "inspirational" when "inspiring" would be so much more elegant.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM

I've been thinking about this, and while I understand that I may be considered rude when I correct a grownup's grammar, I think it is much ruder to want to be uneducated or to complain about finding something out you didn't know.
Plus I try to do it by repeating what they said, only not wrong, as I go on with the conversation, so it's not as if I stop the conversation to say No, that is wrong.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 17 - 06:10 PM

"I can see where you're coming from, but..."

"Today's victory was an historical win for the Reds..."

"I'm literally gobsmacked at today's news..."

"The fog will have cleared by dawn tomorrow morning..."

"At least today's rain will have washed the humidity out of the air"

"The band of rain will push its way westwards..."

"The odd shower may pop up anywhere..."

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Dec 17 - 06:35 PM

"At the end of the day...."

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 03 Dec 17 - 06:52 PM

That was "lethal", "fatal" - OK, so you're dead? Don't look it to me!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 17 - 04:52 PM

Working a lot with project managers makes you a bit more tolerant of workspeak.

They say 'but the business needs this to be done by tomorrow' to which the reply is 'you should have asked for it yesterday then'.

The worst though is 'We all need to pull together to get this done'. Which actually means 'I have cocked up and need you to work all weekend to pull me out of the shit'. To which the only answer is 'Fuck off' :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 05 Dec 17 - 05:43 PM

You've not quite got the hang of this, have you, Dave? The correct answer is, in fact, "Here's the rope - start pulling; I'll see you Monday!" ;-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 04:50 AM

Many people seem to feel obliged to describe difficulties and problems as 'challenging' instead of 'difficult', but they continue to say 'No problem', not 'No challenge'.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 04:54 AM

We no longer have 'problems' but either 'issues' or 'opportunities for resolution' :-)

Raedwulf - I'll try that one! May even sing them a shanty while I am at it :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 05:40 AM

I've even heard the collapsed brexit talks described as "deferred success."

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 06:48 AM

Ah, well, there, Steve, we're off the topic of grammar, and on to that of management speak, PR, spin (positive, in this case), AKA BS. All very appropriate for below the line... ;-)

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 08:44 AM

Just heard Sophie on the Bbeb news saying that some houses in the wildfires in California have been "razed to the ground." Grr.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 09:48 AM

Let's all read Orwell's essay "Politics and the English language again - and if you haven't read it, go and read it.

Kingsley Amis once wrote that every author should read what they have written out loud in order to improve the flow and clarity of their sentences. I'm no fan of Amis's politics, but I do admire his honesty and his clarity of language, and love some (not all) of his novels.

My own personal pet peeve is the popular (mis)use of the word "decimate", which is now used as a term for major destruction, rather than in the original sense of one tenth destruction.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 09:50 AM

There you are: an omitted " after language. I blame the iPad.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 09:59 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 08:44 AM
Just heard Sophie on the Bbeb news saying that some houses in the wildfires in California have been "razed to the ground." Grr.

"Razed to the ground"? What's the problem there?
Several online dictionaries, while defining it as "destroy totally" go on to use examples which include "razed to the ground".

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 10:23 AM

Just read that essay, Will. I had never heard it mentioned before so I am glad that you brought it up.

Nigel, it may answer your question.

DtD

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM

"Razed" means totally destroyed, smashed to the ground. Razed to the ground means destroyed down to the ground down to the ground.

You're going to have to live with "decimate," Will. You may as well try to hang on to "gay" as meaning happy and cheery.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 11:01 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM
"Razed" means totally destroyed, smashed to the ground.

Sorry, which is it?
If an American home with cellar, root cellar, and possibly nuclear bunker, is "totally destroyed" then all those below ground parts must presumably also be destroyed.
If everything above ground (as in hurricane season)is destroyed, it has been smashed to the ground.

If Razed means both totally destroyed, and smashed to the ground, then its meaning is unclear.
"Razed to the ground" then clarifies that meaning. The cellars survive.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 11:11 AM

This isn't incorrect usage, but it irritates me nonetheless. I dislike it when people use 'invest' to mean 'spend a lot of money', as in "We finally invested in a big, flat-screen TV."

To invest money is to buy something that you hope will bring in more money, such as a stock or bond. A TV isn't an investment, it's merely an expenditure.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 11:47 AM

Oh I gave up on decimate years ago, Steve - still a pet peeve though!

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 12:41 PM

Merriam Webster   

Definition of raze

1 a archaic : erase
b : to scrape, cut, or shave off
2 : to destroy to the ground : demolish


Examples of raze in a Sentence

    an entire city block razed by a terrible fire

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 01:04 PM

Thank you for your support, Iains.

Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 01:12 PM

OTOH, from my OED, completely destroy (a building, town, or other site), following it with the example villages were razed to the ground, and gives the ultimate derivation as a Latin verb 'to scrape'. Remember when quoting M-W that the original W was the Anglophobe Noah Webster who, when selecting between variant spellings, always chose the spelling that wasn't the common English one! Thus inflicting abominations such as 'color' & 'center' upon the world (I don't think we can blame him for 'aluminum' - it hadn't quite been 'invented' when he published his first dikker! ;-) ).

I give best to Nigel on this one!