We must stop correcting grammar

28 Nov 17 - 06:39 AM (#3890878)
Subject: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

This really strikes a chord

Applies to many posts on here too. Are you listening? You know who you are :-)

DtG

---

28 Nov 17 - 11:26 AM (#3890958)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: GUEST,leeneia

I agree, Dave. Correcting grammar should be done in only a few situations.

1. Between parent and child
2. In the classroom
3. For a foreigner, who will truly be helped. I had a student asking me for the pattern for a "hand" recently. I taught her that the word is "potholder."

Here on the Mudcat, correcting is used mostly as a way to embarrass someone. Not nice.

---

28 Nov 17 - 11:26 AM (#3890959)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

A friend got a bit uptight when I corrected something he had written, and told me in no uncertain terms that there was nothing wrong with his spelling and grammar. Rather than lose a friend, I apologised, to which he replied,"Your welcome"!

---

28 Nov 17 - 02:40 PM (#3890999)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: The Sandman

I'm sitting in the garden in my little Noddy suit
With a sparrow on me fishing rod and frog spawn in my boot
Oh it's tiddling down with rain, I've got water on the brain,
But I'll sit here by the pond like King Canute.

The kids have knocked my nose off, and my boots are getting thin,
And the way that they all treat me here, it really is a sin.
And there's a pigeon I can see, he's aiming straight for me,
And the gardener strikes his matches on my shin.

Well, long ago I used to be a king upon a throne.
I met a wicked fairy and she turned me into stone.
And that is why I'm sitting in this garden all alone.
It's not much fun being a gnome.

I'm sitting here a fishing but these fishes never bite.
And anyway it's been so long I've lost my appetite,
Oh it really is a strain, here's that pigeon back again.
Has anybody got some dynamite.

There's a doggy comes to see me every evening after tea,
I used to wonder why he was so very fond of me.
And then I found out why, it hit me in the eye.
Have you ever been mistaken for a tree.

My earhole's full of cobwebs and my doublet doesn't fit.
Sitting on this toadstool well I feel a proper twit.
And the way that they all treat me here it makes me want to spit.
And it's not much fun being a Gnome.

But I'll sit here in the garden in my little Noddy suit.
With a sparrow on my fishing rod and tadpoles in my boots.
Oh it's piddling down with rain, I've got water on the brain.
But I'll sit here by the pond like King Canute, RULE BRITTANIA!
I'll sit here by the pond like King Canute.

---

[The Gnome, by Miles Wootton]

---

28 Nov 17 - 04:20 PM (#3891010)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Having your grammar/spelling/punctuation corrected is very annoying, but the beauty of it is that the person correcting you is invariably guilty of much more of said inelegance than you are. It's generally very easy to pick them to pieces on account of their own peccadillos, always far more numerous than yours, and the temptation to move in for the kill is too great to resist. Very naughty, but I'm only human.



It's "Britannia" by the way, Dick. Heheh!

---

28 Nov 17 - 04:26 PM (#3891012)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Very good, Dick. I would have been even more impressed if it had have been an original or if you had credited Miles Wootton.

It is not true of course. It is great fun being a Gnome.

:D tG

---

28 Nov 17 - 08:03 PM (#3891042)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

It will not be that long before we in Scotland get into the season celebrating our great bard, Robert Burns.(Possessive Burns' or possibly Burns's)
But it really gets up my nose to see BURN'S so often included in even official invitations, and also on our dance band set list (we have a Burns' Waltz Set and a Burns' reel set, both of which get wrongly placed apostrophes by the sender of the set list!) Now if someone was called James, you would, I hope, never write Jame's, so why Burn's??
And Britannia - only right about 50% of the times you see it in print! Oh yes, we have the Brittania Two-Step on our set list too!
So....why must we STOP correcting grammar? (I did read the attached article!)

---

28 Nov 17 - 08:13 PM (#3891045)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: mg

I also correct the correctors but not the original poster.

---

29 Nov 17 - 12:28 AM (#3891061)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

"So....why must we STOP correcting grammar?"

Tattie Boggle, stop wasting our time. You're not that naive. ============
Our relationship with apostrophes is far more wonderful and complex than the grammar books suspect.
=============
Re: Britannia. This is another of those words that have two of something, but many people are not sure which. (You'd think people would realize that if Britain has one T, then Britannia has one T.
But many people don't analyze language. They just let it flow over them.) Other examples:

zucchini or zuchinni?
Conecticutt or Connecticut?
brocolli or broccoli?
paralellepiped or not?

I have a friend whose last name is Henesey or Hennesey or Hennessy. Because of her, I started keeping my address book by my friend's first names.

---

29 Nov 17 - 02:49 AM (#3891068)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: robomatic

From Brann The Iconoclast:
Do you understand, Jenks? Can you discover the beau-
tiful moral of the story without a diagram? Right here,
Jenks, I will present you — ^as a worthy representative of a
considerable contingent of smart Alecs — with a slug of
advice that is more precious than fine gold. Treasure it
tenderly and transmit it as a priceless heritage to the
Jenkses of the next generation : Whenever you encoun-
ter a grammatical error riding gayly along on a train of
thought, "Kill it and go on." Remember that even the
good Homer nods sometimes. If you aspire to be really
useful go sit on the bleaching board and watch an ama-
teur game of baseball, bestride a dry goods box and save
the country, spit at a mark, preach prohibition, play
croquet with a bevy of old maids, suck a cane— do anything
but play grammar sharp.

---

29 Nov 17 - 03:36 AM (#3891077)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mr Red

Correcting grammar may avoid errors of communication. Language is communication. Pure and simple.

Life ain't binary nor is language. The rule should be - can the other person understand?

English is full of homophones, homonyms and nuances. What you say is perfectly understandable to you. But does it communicate?

And are the receivers actually listening - grammar is a two-way process.

case in point that has no real resolution is: A through B is the same as A to B inclusive in the UK we may understand the former (depending on context) but does the US understand the latter?

And I always try to say "in the circumstances" which a lot of people would not notice and prefer "under" - but logic (not a hard and fast rule in English) should tell you circum surrounds you, not on top of you. Does it matter - not in this case but there are cases and they only reveal themselves when it costs you money, time or even life.

Anyone remember those temporary road signs that said "Wait while red light shows"? In Yorkshire** (predominantly) while means until. There were accidents with people who "knew" what it meant but took a chance by invoking Yorshirese in their defence.

** roses of other colours are available.

---

29 Nov 17 - 03:38 AM (#3891078)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

From: leeneia - PM
Date: 29 Nov 17 - 12:28 AM
zucchini or zuchinni?

When faced with a word which I have trouble spelling, I either look it up, or use a different defence mechanism:
zucchini or zuchinni? "courgette"

Cheers
Nigel

---

29 Nov 17 - 04:16 AM (#3891081)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Ebbie

Well. I grant that the article makes a good point, but I hate to give up the right to correct. Even if not publicly, at least in my own mind. Words are important, they have power, they are the means by which we create so many things.

I deplore the current trend of abbreviating and phoneticizing so many words on our phones and in our advertisements. How do we expect the upcoming generations not only to be able to spell correctly but to recognize the fact that communication is vital, that there is formal language and there is casual language?

On the other hand, I was humbled one night on a number of emails, even though it ended up being hilarious. See, a friend in New Mexico and I were in a leisurely conversation about words and their usage and we congratulated ourselves on our attention to detail.

We wrote back and forth perhaps four times - and each time we each made a mistake! We finally agreed to give it up and say good night.

---

29 Nov 17 - 04:41 AM (#3891089)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos

While "in the circumstances" could refer to favourable circumstances, enabling you to do something that might not have been possible or sensible otherwise, "under the circumstances" suggests oppression, where the circumstances are preventing you from doing what you would have preferred to do.

---

29 Nov 17 - 04:57 AM (#3891093)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

Why should we stop correcting grammar? Why do we have so many different languages in the first place & so many people therefore can't communicate with most of the rest of humanity? Since we all came from a small group of common ancestors (allegedly) who presumably all spoke the same primitive language, how the hell did we wind up with the vast chasm between inflected & non-inflected, never mind odd quirks like glottal stops? (And yes, I'm just going to assume that everyone understands what I'm referring to; naughty me!)

The author of the article frankly strikes me as being something of a berk. "being a good person is HARD." No it isn't. It's dead fucking easy. We all have our off moments, but it's not difficult to not be a self-absorbed, self-centred twit 99% of the time. Oh, wait, sorry, for him it is. So can I just point out that it's not "who'd o' guessed?!"; it's "who'd `a' guessed?!" The vagaries of pronunciation mean a lot of folk do indeed say "of", but the word you are abbreviating is "have". There, that's my grammar Nazi moment for this quarter out of the way!

Spolling (sic) is a miner (sic) matter - it applies only to the written word. Grammar applies to both written & spoken, but remains a minor matter. HOWEVER! The point of both is that they are attempts to provide a structure to language that makes communication easier. Do you know what txtspk is? Do you know what l33t is? Have you come across the popular "mxeid wrods" meme / post? I can read them all, but my comprehension is slower, and I am more likely to misunderstand something, especially if I'm being rushed for some reason. People misunderstand each other easily enough as it is; you want to make it easier for that to happen?!

There is always, if you are so inclined, pleasure in demolishing a badly constructed argument, whatever its weaknesses, whether it's bigotry & ignorance, false arguments such as strawman or ad hominem, etc. What? I said I was good, I never claimed to be nice; not the same thing! :p Random (i.e. outside of actual education) grammar correction, in my experience, always occurs online, but a large part of our education, both formal & informal and throughout our lives, comes through the written word. Spelling & grammar may be minor, but that doesn't equate to unimportant. Good is not the same as nice, simple is not the same as easy; a car is easy / not hard to learn to drive for most people, but a simple piece of machinery it is not!

For the most part, it is not worthwhile correcting spelling or grammar; indeed, it can be counter-productive & you make yourself look a twit. One good reason for not doing it - you probably know nothing about the other person. They might be dyslexic. Stupid & ignorant - two words that also don't mean the same thing. Are they incapable of learning / understanding beyond a certain level? Has their education been disrupted? Almost certainly, either case is not their fault.

But there are two reasons why I will savage someone. The first is someone trying to be superior - "sorry, you're claiming to be better than them & you can't even..." The second is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should, in my view, always be challenged. It's easy to hammer both of the author's examples "Why dont the Muslins cant not LERN ENGLISH??????" Why should they when you obviously couldn't be bothered, pal? The immigrant-bashing grammar Nazi is even easier - "How come you're not correcting your fellow racist bigots for whom this is supposedly their FIRST language?"

There's a third reason too, and it's why I deliberately used an aggressive word - "savage". The chances are you will have no useful effect whatsoever on the poster you are taking issue with. But the world is almost never bipolar. The light switch only goes on & off, the ballot paper may only have yes & no on it. But a thermostat has a range of settings, and a ballot paper usually has several choices. The world is rarely black & white. I hate preaching to the converted; it's pointless. I've a dear friend who nearly fell out with me. She's a bit of an eco-warrior, so frequently shares stuff from groups like Sea Shepherd. I don't like the killing of whales & dolphins, but I detest the hyperbolic garbage they put out & I'm on their side of the fence! Having eventually blocked them, I now won't see anything of theirs & I certainly won't support them. Well done, Sea Shepherd. The people who are going "Yeah!" already support you; the people going "No!" never will. It's all the shades of grey you want to influence. If you've pissed me off & I'm on your side, what have done with everyone else...

In making any counter-argument, you are unlikely to influence an original strong opinion. But you may well influence those who are less certain. In attacking a poster's grammar, you are committing a minor ad hominem (it's the only time I'll willingly & knowingly do that), but if you can further weaken someone else's poor argument by making them appear ignorant / ill-educated, I'd say that's legitimate. In general, I wouldn't (& don't) bother to correct people, unless they ask for help. But in the scenario cited by the article? Far from "never", I'd go for the throat every time that I could us it as a supporting argument, or if language was their original point.

---

29 Nov 17 - 06:02 AM (#3891101)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Well we're not here to write legalese. We shouldn't be in a state of tension when typing a post just in case someone's out there hawkishly looking for flaws. Many flaws are not really flaws in any case. Grammar nazis frequently cling to rules that are not rules at all. It's never been wrong to routinely, or sporadically, or even just in isolation, split infinitives, for example. The nazi in that case doesn't understand what an infinitive is. When I look back at some of my posts, I see that I'm guilty of constructing somewhat elaborate and tortuous sentences at times. They might not contain actual mistakes but they give the reader too much mental processing to do. As has been well said, it's all about communicating ideas clearly. But just don't even think of gratuitously picking me up for little errors unless you want me to go for the jugular, that's all. I can't help myself!

---

29 Nov 17 - 06:53 AM (#3891114)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

When leeneia took Tattie Bogle to task for "wasting our time", I looked back at Tattie Bogul's post to see what had caused leeneia's reaction but accidently skipped the relevant post and went to an earlier one. On re-reading this earlier post, I realised that there was a punchline

          .............to which he replied,"Your welcome"!

that I hadn't seen. I read it with its intended meaning without noticing the deliberate grammatical mistake.

As leeneia said:      ....many people don't analyze language. They just let it flow over them.




Raedwulf,
Do you know what txtspk is? Do you know what l33t is? Have you come across the popular "mxeid wrods" meme / post?

I understand "txtspk" and "mxeid wrods" but what does "l33t" mean?


DC

---

29 Nov 17 - 07:41 AM (#3891119)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler

Have a look at Dave Gorman's "Modern life is goodish", the episode from last week, to see his theory about the textspeak geberation.

Basically, he believes that he is in the generation that uses correct spelling and punctuation because that generation were not brought up with mobile phones as children.
The next generation is using textspeak as they were brought up with them.
The previous generation are learning how to use smartphones from their grandchildren and so are also using textspeak.

Robin

---

29 Nov 17 - 08:22 AM (#3891125)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

l33t = Leet
Wiki

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:34 AM (#3891151)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

Indeed, Steve. To put the point another way, grammar (spolling inc!) should only ever be the nail in the stick, never the stick itself. In other words, if you feel you have a reason to argue with someone, it's an extra spanner in the toolkit, but if it's the reason you're arguing with someone, you probably ought to take a step back, find a mirror, and take a look at yourself!

Doug - Nigel has kindly provided a link. In brief, it is (99% of the time) replacing letters with numbers. C U ltr is txt; str8 i.e. straight is l33t. As a gamer, I use a certain amount of txt myself; gn for goodnight, np for no problem, etc; though I dislike txtspk generally. C U for 'see you' is, to my mind, just being bloody lazy - learn to type, learn to spell, both are useful skills! It usually takes me longer to proof-read; to ensure I'm saying what I want in the way I want to say it, as well as to correct errors; than it does to actually type a message! L33t I detest & won't use at all.

The only genuine reason for using either that I can see ("being in with the cool crowd" is not a genuine reason) is if you are being charged or limited by character count. Since I neither text nor Twit... ;-)

---

29 Nov 17 - 10:45 AM (#3891173)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Anne Lister

I don't correct grammar, except in my head. However when I was engaged in internet dating, the ability of my correspondents to use language well was certainly a factor in my deciding whether or not the communication had any chance of resulting in a worthwhile encounter. It paid off, too - we've been together now for almost eighteen years! I am always surprised at the relatively low level of literacy skills in a lot of Facebook interractions, although not, generally, from people who are friends of mine (ah, but is that my selection process going on again, even for friendships?). However, I almost lost a friend when I asked her to read a draft of my novel to check for any inconsistencies and mistakes when cutting and pasting some sections and she took me to task for what she perceived as my grammatical mistakes. These turned out to be matters on which we completely disagreed with each other. I've been a language teacher and was trained in drafting clear English in a rigorous job before then. I'm having to fight a bit of a battle with the PhD thesis I'm currently writing, as I want to keep it clear and unambiguous but keep being told by my supervisors that my English isn't "academic" enough. Meanwhile an American friend posted a couple of days ago about the misuse of "nauseous" and "nauseated", and yet according to the UK English dictionaries this isn't a misuse, just a different usage.
It's a funny old world.

---

29 Nov 17 - 01:04 PM (#3891212)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Yes, we hear that one here ad nauseum. Heheh...

"Nauseum" is just an ignorant blunder, but we have to be careful when discussing usage. Hanging on for dear life to a cherished meaning when so many around you are using the word differently is futile and puts you in danger of becoming a grammar cop and looking like a twit. It's fine to say that you're feeling gay today but unless you deliberately want to sound facetious you'd sound a bit daft. In writing, so many people write "alright" these days. It does me brain in, but there's no point arguing about it any more (anymore). I think most dictionaries have included it as standard English in some usage contexts (and dictionaries there to reflect, not judge). Some time (sometime) in the future we may (might) be looking back on all this, lamenting the degradation of the language. But the language will (er, not shall) continue to evolve regardless (irregardless - arrgh!) it's what people actually say and write what (wot, which, that) matters most.

And should there be a full stop outside that final bracket? I've never quite worked that one out!

---

29 Nov 17 - 01:05 PM (#3891213)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Dictionaries ARE there...

---

29 Nov 17 - 01:09 PM (#3891215)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Gawd, I didn't 'alf muck the end of that up! New sentence after "aargh!" and it was that bracket that I was referring to. I've lost my reading glasses.

---

29 Nov 17 - 01:14 PM (#3891218)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

Thank you Nigel and Raedwulf.

DC

---

29 Nov 17 - 08:52 PM (#3891323)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: michaelr

If we don't encourage the use of correct grammar and spelling (which means discouraging incorrect use) we will revert to barbarism. Society is already well on the way.

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:05 PM (#3891328)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Rapparee

Words are for communication, grammar and punctuation enhance communication:

"Let's eat, Grandma!"
"Let's eat Grandma!"

have two entirely different meanings which are clarified by the comma. In speech this is done by inflection and other vocal means, in writing such must be done by spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Yes, I can read and write 1337 and other things. Have for a very long time. I've also used emoticons when they help get meaning across.

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:15 PM (#3891334)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: robomatic

"I'm a Panda! Look it up!"

(Eats Shoots and Leaves)

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:27 PM (#3891337)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Joe Offer

For a brief time in the recent past, I bore the somewhat inflated title of associate editor of the "Rise Again" songbook. During that time, I corrected spelling and grammar with wild abandon. For the son of an English teacher, that was the ultimate power trip. Trouble is, there was somebody above me who bore the title of editor. But most of the time, I prevailed.

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:37 PM (#3891338)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

Not entirely sure what Leeneia was getting at there, but she didn't even spell my name correctly........
Nor did Doug Chadwick....
And my mother was an English teacher too.
You're welcome!

---

29 Nov 17 - 09:47 PM (#3891339)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Joe Offer

I've always felt a certain kinship with you, Tattie Bogle. Guess it's because we're both Hated by Humanity,being the offspring of English teachers. My mom taught Latin, too - and now I'm a Latin tutor. There's no hope that anybody will EVER love me....

---

30 Nov 17 - 03:16 AM (#3891351)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Peter K (Fionn)

Leeneia, did you mean friends' ? (It makes a difference.)

---

30 Nov 17 - 03:39 AM (#3891356)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mr Red

"under the circumstances" suggests oppression, where the circumstances are preventing you from doing what you would have preferred to do. - "outwith" might service (in the lowlands of Scotland!).

as long as the receiver understands the nuance!
In verbal/song communication? Very unlikely. In text or e-mail? Unlikely. On paper - maybe, but who reads a newspaper twice? In a book - or a poem - ya got me there, re-reading especially for performance - sure. Subtlety is the name of the game.

The truth is that language morphs, and the words that morph slowly (if at all) are the ones used most of all. The peripheral words are considered fair game to a generation that want to to be associated with their peers. Those of us who were that generation long ago have to be dragged screaming, into this century, to be able to communicate with the young.

Then there is context. eg wicked or is it wkd ? And the vigilantes who misread paediatrician for paedophile. And could they spell it? In Brittain?

It's a jungle out there.

---

30 Nov 17 - 05:16 AM (#3891371)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"And the vigilantes who misread paediatrician for paedophile."

Yes, absolutely shocking for those poor foot doctors.

---

30 Nov 17 - 05:55 AM (#3891380)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

....she didn't even spell my name correctly........
Nor did Doug Chadwick....

I apologise Tattie Bogle.

I did get it right the first time. The fact that I spelt it wrong again within the same sentence just confirms my lack of attention that I admitted to in the post. If it's any consolation, I spelt leeneia's name wrong at first and had to check it during the proof reading. I checked yours as well but didn't notice I had used it twice.

DC

---

30 Nov 17 - 06:10 AM (#3891386)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

I actually thought that might be your little joke, just testing me, to see if I'd pick it up!
No hard feelings!

---

30 Nov 17 - 10:13 AM (#3891441)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

In the back of my mind is a paragraph of a text book from 35 years ago..

At that time it was a key insight for my developing politicised undergrad student view of the world.

Essentially, it pinpointed how pedantic imposition of over precise rigid rules of English Language
was a ruling class elite tool of oppression and power consolidation...

..something like that.. buggered if after 3 decades I can even remember the book or it's author,
let alone enough of the paragraph to paraphrase it adequately...

---

30 Nov 17 - 06:58 PM (#3891524)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: robomatic

Let's not forget the longstanding insult of the AM radio commentator crowd in shortening the adjective Democratic by leaving out the 'ic'.

I've been trying to come up with an effective countermeasure:
Republican'ts Republiwon'ts
Republic*nts
Replicants
or just kicking them in the b*lls.

I'll just have to try 'em all and see which one catches on.

---

30 Nov 17 - 07:20 PM (#3891528)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: ripov

I remember an establishment in Kent where they had gone to great pains to put the apostrophe in the correct place - the sign read CAF'E

---

30 Nov 17 - 08:37 PM (#3891534)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: michaelr

pfr - "pedantic imposition of over precise rigid rules of English Language was a ruling class elite tool of oppression and power consolidation"

Well, in Britain, how one spoke was historically an indicator of class, was it not? (said he through his nose) So your statement makes some sense, until one asks the question what "over precise" means: who decides it's "over" just precise?

I grew up and went to high school in Germany, with teachers for parents. German is a much more precise and inflexible language than English, second probably only to Latin. No one speaks it the way it is written in literature, mainly because it would take too long. However, in my mind precision is a good thing. It affords the speaker a greater probability to have his meaning understood, which furthers communication. I hope we can agree that is a Good Thing.

I came to love the English language for its flexibility and degree of imprecision, shorter words and the possibility of shorter sentences. I would hate to see it degraded.

---

30 Nov 17 - 10:50 PM (#3891543)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

I could have omitted "over precise"..

I was just trying to quickly string together a sentence that fairly paraphrased the little I could remember of a key paragraph
from an otherwise long forgotten social sciences text book...

While I needed a quick tea break from more important chores, like sorting out the recycle bins....


One of the best skills I learned at 6th Form College was how to precis long winded pompous writing.
We had one lesson a week dedicated to training our ability to shorten and improve the clarity
of an unreadable extract of legal/business/administrative/journalism/academic/etc text, within a set time limit.

This was one class I excelled at when I was 17...

It's ingrained in my character to seek essential core meaning and ignore superfluous waffle and flab.
Precision in communication genuinely matters to me.
I fully support the aims of "Plain English Campaign".

Unfortunately 4 decades of contending with the shit life throws at us, has deadened my intellect, screwed my ability to focus and articulate,
buggered my grammar and vocabulary,
and reduced me to the crap careless writer I now am...
Writing is a struggle........

So I really let down those teachers who had such high expectations I would have a career as a writer.
Probably why they were teachers and not fortune tellers...????

In fact out of my close group of old school friends I am the only one who has never made any money from writing.
That's the curse of being the only one of us who had boy band good looks and sex appeal....

---

01 Dec 17 - 12:45 AM (#3891548)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: michaelr

What an enjoyably honest post, pfr. I can relate to most of what you said, particularly "to seek essential core meaning and ignore superfluous waffle and flab". That is what we're all called to do in this age of insidious distractions. Those little grey cells are still capable of doing important work.

---

01 Dec 17 - 03:35 AM (#3891555)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jim Carroll

A bit off topic, but for me, grammar is a literacy problem that can be dealt with by simply pointing out the errors
What concerns me far more is the steady slide into sloppy and ugly speech, led largely by the broadcasting media who has banished word endings and inserted glottal stops - this has permeated everything from newsreading to shampoo adverts.
The beautiful sound of our language, including vernacular speech, is steadily replaced by the ugly grunting of Estuary English
I have little time for the old BBC Establishment, but come back Lord Reith and his respect for the language, all is forgiven.
Jim Carroll

---

01 Dec 17 - 05:16 AM (#3891577)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

I don't think degradation arises from splitting infinitives or starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions. But I do think it's a shame to not fight back against the phenomenon of the persistent ignorant misuse of words allowing that misuse to become enshrined as standard English. I think that there is a distinction worth preserving between "disinterested" and "uninterested," though it always came down to usage in the end, not a lost rule, because there never was a rule (as with those confounded split infinitives). Once, when compiling the reports for my class, I sent one back to the PE teacher who had written "Paula has not done as well as expected because she is disinterested in athletics." He hadn't broken a rule but (to my mind ignorantly) had selected by far the less appropriate of the two words. I was overruled.

Another misuse that is now acceptable is "begging the question" for "raising the question." It now hardly ever possesses its original meaning, but hey ho. A little piece of me wants to smirk at this example of pompous misuse, but, well, if that's how people want to use the expression...

But don't get me started on "albeit" or "prior to," both crimes against our beautiful language, punishable by loudly-expressed derision. I'm not having "alright" either, not ever! Although I already realise that I may not be altogether rational in rejecting it almost out of hand...

---

01 Dec 17 - 05:51 AM (#3891583)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Well, that's alright then...

:D tG

---

01 Dec 17 - 07:14 AM (#3891600)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

This suit of armour'll be alright on the knight...

---

01 Dec 17 - 07:57 AM (#3891613)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

I thought you has sword off making bad puns.

---

01 Dec 17 - 08:43 AM (#3891625)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

I know it is rude, but I do, sometimes, correct the grammar of native speakers who really ought to know better. With foreigners, I ask if they would like to be corrected if they make a mistake. When I speak foreign languages, I ask to be corrected if I make a mistake. I rarely make mistakes in my native languages, but appreciate correction if I do. But I won't dumb down to the level of the ignorant just to be polite.
I have learned to use local phrases like "store-boughten" but my tongue is visibly in my cheek when I use them.

---

01 Dec 17 - 11:03 AM (#3891664)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

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.

---

01 Dec 17 - 08:20 PM (#3891759)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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.

---

02 Dec 17 - 04:14 AM (#3891788)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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!!

---

02 Dec 17 - 05:24 AM (#3891793)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

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


DC

---

02 Dec 17 - 06:33 AM (#3891806)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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.

---

02 Dec 17 - 06:36 AM (#3891809)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos

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'.

---

02 Dec 17 - 06:45 AM (#3891812)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

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

DC

---

02 Dec 17 - 08:12 AM (#3891829)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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!

---

02 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM (#3891830)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

*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... :/

---

02 Dec 17 - 08:58 AM (#3891836)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 09:02 AM (#3891838)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 09:40 AM (#3891842)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

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.

---

02 Dec 17 - 10:47 AM (#3891851)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 11:25 AM (#3891852)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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... ;-)

---

02 Dec 17 - 11:53 AM (#3891855)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Can I have a bucket of pail ale please?

DtG

---

02 Dec 17 - 12:22 PM (#3891866)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

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...!!!!!

---

02 Dec 17 - 12:42 PM (#3891874)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 12:53 PM (#3891877)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Nice one Raedwulf :-)

---

02 Dec 17 - 03:58 PM (#3891893)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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!

---

02 Dec 17 - 04:20 PM (#3891894)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

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"

---

02 Dec 17 - 04:29 PM (#3891895)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

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. :)

---

02 Dec 17 - 04:36 PM (#3891896)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 04:45 PM (#3891897)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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?

---

02 Dec 17 - 07:51 PM (#3891923)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

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").

---

02 Dec 17 - 07:55 PM (#3891924)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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

---

02 Dec 17 - 08:01 PM (#3891926)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

"going forward"

---

02 Dec 17 - 08:35 PM (#3891933)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

A raft of measures.

---

03 Dec 17 - 07:14 AM (#3891981)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos

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.

---

03 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM (#3892023)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

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.

---

03 Dec 17 - 06:10 PM (#3892100)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"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..."

---

03 Dec 17 - 06:35 PM (#3892103)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Greg F.

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

---

03 Dec 17 - 06:52 PM (#3892105)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

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

---

05 Dec 17 - 04:52 PM (#3892302)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

05 Dec 17 - 05:43 PM (#3892304)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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!" ;-)

---

06 Dec 17 - 04:50 AM (#3892364)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jos

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'.

---

06 Dec 17 - 04:54 AM (#3892366)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 05:40 AM (#3892378)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 06:48 AM (#3892391)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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... ;-)

---

06 Dec 17 - 08:44 AM (#3892409)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 09:48 AM (#3892422)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

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.

---

06 Dec 17 - 09:50 AM (#3892424)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 09:59 AM (#3892427)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

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".

---

06 Dec 17 - 10:23 AM (#3892431)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM (#3892434)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

---

06 Dec 17 - 11:01 AM (#3892441)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

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.

---

06 Dec 17 - 11:11 AM (#3892444)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

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.

---

06 Dec 17 - 11:47 AM (#3892447)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 12:41 PM (#3892452)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

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

---

06 Dec 17 - 01:04 PM (#3892455)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Thank you for your support, Iains.

---

06 Dec 17 - 01:12 PM (#3892459)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

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!

---

06 Dec 17 - 02:02 PM (#3892476)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

The word raze means to level a building right to the ground. As you can't partially raze it (as it wouldn't then be levelled), to say that it's been razed to the ground is a pleonasm. Other examples of pleonasms would be to say I'll meet you at 9am in the morning, I feel surrounded on all sides, he reverted back to type, I'll be receiving a free gift. "The building was razed" is complete, elegant and beautiful, unless it's your building and you didn't want it razed.

Foundations and cellars don't count, Nigel. They are below ground. Razing means to level, not to hollow out.

---

06 Dec 17 - 02:50 PM (#3892484)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

oh drat those < / i >... the little awkward buggers..

---

06 Dec 17 - 03:40 PM (#3892486)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

You're arguing with the OED, Steve. It's a figure of speech. It may be that it's a clarification (if you take Nigel's view). It may be that it's simply an extra emphasis; an intensifier, a doubling up, call it how you will; which isn't that uncommon in English. And that is one of the reasons why we have such a rich & many-coloured language. But, when it comes down to it, I'll trust to the OED more than to you. They say razed to the ground is fine.

---

06 Dec 17 - 05:09 PM (#3892497)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

and gives the ultimate derivation as a Latin verb 'to scrape'

Read Orwell's essay to see his opinion of why this is important.

DtG

---

06 Dec 17 - 05:17 PM (#3892498)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Raedwulf, you appear to have forgotten that the job of dictionaries is to reflect, not to judge. A dictionary can declare that a term has become so commonly used that it's become "standard." But that doesn't mean that those of us who want to preserve nuance have to accept it. You are perfectly free to use the word "irregardless." It's a word because people use it as a word. But it isn't a word you'll ever hear me using. Hopefully, you neither. Your dictionary doesn't say that "razed to the ground" is "fine." It says that the term is in common use and, non-judgementally, calls it standard English. But dictionaries are never arbiters. That isn't their job. Worth remembering by those whose last resort is to a book that is merely the work of a fallible human replete with his own idiosyncrasies. I've explained what "raze" means. Why not do as I did - resort not just to dictionaries (I did) but also to books specialising in the use of English (I have four). Not one supports your defence of the deliberate degradation of a perfectly good word.

---

06 Dec 17 - 05:19 PM (#3892499)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

And a "figure of speech" it definitely is not. Dearie me.

---

06 Dec 17 - 07:00 PM (#3892509)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Raedwulf

Who says I've "forgotten" anything? Should I suggest that you've forgotten that language is mutable & evolves? If the likes of Oxford aren't arbiters, who is? You? I think not. So there are no arbiters, language is mutable, and the OED is about as good as it gets as a reference. A book defining the use of a language is a fossil the moment it is published (I've many books about words & their use), because it is already out of date. I don't like much of the modern evolution of English, but in 50 years we both will be fossils too, and the language will still be evolving. So much for either of us!

By the way, yes, I do use "irregardless" sometimes. I am well aware that the ir- prefix is a negative (vice 'irregular'), but in the colloquial 'irregardless' it's an intensifier - "regardless, only more so". Which is an expression I don't doubt you will also instantly hate & will take issue with. But that's how & when I (rarely) use it.

English is wonderfully flexible. It doesn't fit into a straitjacket. You can either accept that, or fight it & lose. Pedantry is a process of painting oneself into a corner, all the time yelling "Don't step on my wet paint". Not a practice I intend to indulge in. I know what "raze" means. Its usage is more flexible than you are willing to accept. Hard luck. You can rail against it as much as you want. It isn't "wrong", language changes, you are not the judge of what is right & wrong.

---

06 Dec 17 - 07:57 PM (#3892519)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

You're getting very defensive, Raedwulf old chap. In hundreds of posts on dozens of threads that have touched on grammar and the use of English on Mudcat, my line has always been that the way we use our language is just about the most democratic phenomenon there is. The people decide, by using English the way they want to use English, how English evolves. It doesn't cost money to use English the way you want it, and the bigwigs are always in the minority. Eton, royal palaces, the BBC and guardians-of-language gurus notwithstanding, the masses will decide how English should be used, and the self-appointed rule-makers always fail, and rightly so. I rail against rules and ridicule people who adhere to predigested notions such as split infinitives and the like. I've even posted a set of around three dozen spoof rules of English that are just about as iconoclastic as it gets. However, there's a difference between celebrating the evolution of English and tolerating the ignorance-led loss of elegance and nuance. "Irregardless" is plain ignorant, whether or not it's become "standard English." "Razed to the ground" is ignorant because what you've done is copied what you've heard another ignoramus say without bothering to check what it means. "Prior to" is ugly and always unnecessary. None of it is wrong, as there are no rules, but you can be ugly-sounding and ignorant without actually being wrong. You can stand your ground and get all indignant when someone rails against your clumsy (though technically correct) use of language, and good for you if you do. But don't blame me if, as a result, you sound ugly, inelegant and ignorant and cause a raised eyebrow or two. I did try to tell you.

---

07 Dec 17 - 03:33 AM (#3892545)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Dec 17 - 02:02 PM
The word raze means to level a building right to the ground. As you can't partially raze it (as it wouldn't then be levelled), to say that it's been razed to the ground is a pleonasm. Other examples of pleonasms would be to say I'll meet you at 9am in the morning, I feel surrounded on all sides, he reverted back to type, I'll be receiving a free gift. "The building was razed" is complete, elegant and beautiful, unless it's your building and you didn't want it razed.

Foundations and cellars don't count, Nigel. They are below ground. Razing means to level, not to hollow out.

Steve, You're not just arguing with the OED, you're arguing with yourself.
An earlier definition you gave said: "Razed" means totally destroyed, smashed to the ground
Totally destroyed cannot mean partially destroyed, so when discussing buildings the difference between 'razed to the ground' and 'totally destroyed' rests with what remains below ground.

In saying "The word raze means to level a building right to the ground" are you using the same 'level' of tautology that you're complaining about?

---

07 Dec 17 - 04:37 AM (#3892558)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Level in the context of "raze" means to make level with the ground, to leave no stone on stone if you want to get all poetic about it, though no doubt a pedant examining the scene, finding one or two stones still atop other stones, might complain that the destruction was not total enough to warrant "raze." Enjoy the language, Nigel. Revel in its poetry and, every now and then, when you feel like it, put up a little fight to preserve its nuance and colour. And stop worrying.

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:00 AM (#3892561)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

Most times I have seen "razed" used it has been "as razed to the ground".

The same phrase is used by many dictionaries as an example of the use of the word. I take the view that the dictionary explanation and example of usage are far far superior to any contrary views expressed here, especially by our resident self proclaimed polymath.

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:08 AM (#3892562)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Seeing as no one else seems to have looked at the Orwell essay that Will mentioned I will provide a quote from it

Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones

Razed falls into this category.

DtG

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:49 AM (#3892577)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Thing is, Iains, if enough people over sufficient time use a word or phrase in a particular way then it becomes, with a shrug from the dictionary writers, standard English. But that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes beautiful and elegant English. Just think. Raze gives us razor. "To the ground" is fine if you really want to use it. But, to me, it implies that the person using the term, sadly, hasn't given thought as to the origin and connections of this slightly unusual, very useful and economical word. "Raze to the ground" is a pleonasm, no less than "the rain will have cleared by 6am in the morning." It also, subliminally, invites ridicule by dint of its paradoxical allusion to something being raised down instead of up.

I hate "fraught with" but the fight with that is long lost.

And never try to correct any of us ever again, Iains, until you have learned that "self-appointed" is hyphenated.

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:58 AM (#3892579)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

Glad you see that the "cap fits". Is that conceit, or what?

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:15 AM (#3892581)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

I tried to correct myself there but my post hung. I meant "self-proclaimed."

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:16 AM (#3892582)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

For stevie blunder:

Subject: RE: BS: Use of the English language
From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Oct 17 - 03:40 AM

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:18 AM (#3892583)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

Steve.
I see that you've managed to ignore the fact that your comment "The word raze means to level a building right to the ground" misuses 'level' in the same way you claim others are misusing 'raze'.

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:29 AM (#3892585)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

No, Nigel. "Level" does not carry the same connotation of destruction as "raze,' neither does it bear the same stigma of cliched usage as "razed to the ground." I could level a site by removing material, by redistributing material to fill hollows and eliminate high spots or by demolishing the buildings on it then steamrollering the whole lot to flatten it. "Raze" is a gorgeously economical word with little scope for variance. "Level" can mean several different things, though with a similar goal, and can usefully be helped along its way via supporting words. Relax and enjoy the lingo, Nigel, and stop worrying.

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:31 AM (#3892586)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Aaaarrrrggghhhhh! Sorry I started this thread. One point that comes out of it though and underlines a point I have been trying to make for years on here. There are groups of people who have difficulty understanding each other. As grammar is supposed to be about clear communication it is a related topic. Unless we use very formal and precise language there will always be room for misinterpretation. At times this could be on purpose but I think it is generally accidental.

I have no problem at all in understanding Steve's point that it is not always a question of right or wrong but of elegance, economy of language or taste. To take the point in question, it was started by a report that some houses had been 'razed to the ground' in the California fires. We all understand what it means but would it not have been simpler just to say they had burned down?

Just my 2p.

DtG

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:44 AM (#3892588)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Exactly! I can't help thinking that "razed to the ground" had "to the ground" added by the newsreader to "help" the audience to understand what she was on about. Had she said that the houses were razed, maybe she'd thought that half the people listening would start searching in the sky for for flying houses. It would have been far more "helpful" just to say "burned down!" "Razed" is one of those words that works better written down.

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:56 AM (#3892591)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

I have often wondered about the speech and writing of people who are not dyslexic. Do they consciously write from a set of rules or is it an automatic process?

---

07 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM (#3892611)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

Decimate is 9/10, not 1/10, dead. One-tenth survive.

My latest peeve just happened again, when did all NPR announcers start saying Coming up in 1 minutes from now? Hey people, it's either in 10 mn or 10 mn from now.

My dad used to talk about the Department of Redundancy Department...

---

07 Dec 17 - 08:53 AM (#3892615)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

From: Mrrzy - PM
Date: 07 Dec 17 - 08:30 AM
Decimate is 9/10, not 1/10, dead. One-tenth survive.
My latest peeve just happened again, when did all NPR announcers start saying Coming up in 1 minutes from now? Hey people, it's either in 10 mn or 10 mn from now.
My dad used to talk about the Department of Redundancy Department...

Your meaning of 'decimate' is its modern usage. It has changed.

decimate
verb

verb: decimate; 3rd person present: decimates; past tense: decimated; past participle: decimated; gerund or present participle: decimating

kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of.
"the inhabitants of the country had been decimated"

drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).
"public transport has been decimated"

(historical)
kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group.
"the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers"

With Coming up in 1 minutes from now? my objection would be using a plural noun for 1 minute. I also shudder when I hear the expression "one pence".

---

07 Dec 17 - 09:29 AM (#3892626)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

I sooner put up with a good interesting person's fallible use of language,
than any amount of over sophisticated pompous windbags...

---

07 Dec 17 - 09:35 AM (#3892629)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Seeing as it is a thread about the use of English, PFR, I think the term "over sophisticated pompous windbag" could easliy be cut down to one simple Anglo-saxon word. :-)

DtG

---

07 Dec 17 - 09:42 AM (#3892632)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

I like that word... It sounds good and strong..

It is a single word with two completely different meanings, one very nice, and the other usually a tory...

---

07 Dec 17 - 10:07 AM (#3892635)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Moggy?

---

07 Dec 17 - 11:13 AM (#3892653)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

Sorry Mrrzy, "decimate" has its origins from Ancient Rome - a particular punishment being the execution of every tenth person in a legion for failure, treason or other offences.

I grant you the original word has now more or less a historical meaning, as opposed to its modern usage.

Another word used wrongly, even by people who should know better, is "enormity" - whose correct meaning is something of extreme seriousness or wrongness. But people use it to mean something large - confusing it with enormous.

---

07 Dec 17 - 11:49 AM (#3892659)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

The logical thing is to avoid using either word (decimate or enormity) so as to communicate clearly and avoid hard feelings.

I do the same with "comprise." I avoid it.

(Come to think of it, I wonder if they guys in the togas ever actually managed to decimate a legion. Can we suppose that the big, brutal, barbaric legionnaires simply lined up to be counted and killed? I suspect this is another one of those bad things in history which never actually happened.)

---

07 Dec 17 - 01:11 PM (#3892670)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

decimation

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:31 PM (#3892692)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

When Liverpool beat Spartak Moscow 7-0 in the Champions League last night I was literally over the moon.

---

07 Dec 17 - 05:52 PM (#3892695)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Doug Chadwick

The article referred to in the opening post states that, in correcting grammar, a racist contributor to a web page " ...was using his education and his superior knowledge to put someone down and make them feel bad about themselves". The author then examined his own motives and realised that he was much the same:

"I wasn't trying to show people they were wrong, or using intelligent arguments to change their minds. I only wanted them to feel demeaned. I wanted to dominate them, and show that I was better than them"


I can see how the thread drifted from grammar to irritating phrases, expressions and tautology. However, arguing that a word "is plain ignorant, whether or not it's become 'standard English' " or that a commonly used expression "is ignorant because what you've done is copied what you've heard another ignoramus say without bothering to check what it means", seems to miss the whole point of the original article. Suggesting that those who use expressions that don't fit your own personal preference are "clumsy (though technically correct)" and, "as a result, you sound ugly, inelegant and ignorant and cause a raised eyebrow or two", is doing exactly what the article asks us not to do.

DC

---

07 Dec 17 - 06:50 PM (#3892702)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Then challenge and defend the specific points I've "complained" about, Doug, as I appear to be the main target of your contumely, of your unseemly high dudgeon.

In fact, I don't complain about misuse, not really. Complaining would have got Canute nowhere, as he ably demonstrated to his naysayers. I simply remark on the loss of elegance and nuance and the smudging of meaning. Let's see you defending "prior to" over "before." I quote no rule, as there isn't one, but I do rail against pompous inelegance.

---

07 Dec 17 - 07:40 PM (#3892705)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: bobad

Good work Doug, you've nailed it decisively.

---

07 Dec 17 - 08:00 PM (#3892707)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Reflecting on my last post (before anyone else does, winking emojee), I think I'm referring not to the pomposity of those whose mastery of the language is such that they can use elegant yet rare constructions with ease, tripping them off the tongue with amazing elan, fluidity and consummate fluency (as that isn't pomposity at all), but to those who disdain common parlance (which is always the best of all) in favour of what they mistakenly regard as "clever talk" which, they think, will impress their readers so much as to have them dazzled into uncritical acclaim, sycophancy even. I'm talking not just about those insecure types who resort to office jargon but also people who seem unable to take the path of least resistance, always the best road to take in furtherance of one's English credentials. There is NEVER any need to resort to "prior to" or "alright" or "fraught with" or "albeit" or "razed to the ground." But do it if you want to. I may well think you're an idiot. I could well be right. But equally...

---

07 Dec 17 - 08:02 PM (#3892708)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"you've nailed it decisively."

Cheers, boobs, for giving us the perfect illustration of a pleonasm!

---

07 Dec 17 - 08:38 PM (#3892711)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

Pleonasm - never heard that word - looked it up. Can think of a few who fit that bill! No gonnae dae that - tell a'body wha disnae understand "pleonasm" - they can look it up an a'! Too many words there!

---

07 Dec 17 - 09:14 PM (#3892720)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Just look it up at 6am in the morning and you'll see it with your very own eyes. The final upshot will be that you'll hardly find a safe haven for your grammatical tautologies. You'd be better off listening to the recent news.

---

08 Dec 17 - 05:01 AM (#3892760)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

I put five pleonasms in my last post. What better way than by example! They're quite hard to entirely eliminate.

Look at that! A split infinitive AND a pleonasm in just three words! Whaddam I like!

---

08 Dec 17 - 05:25 AM (#3892764)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

'Pleonasm' had me rushing to look it up in an online medical dictionary...

---

08 Dec 17 - 06:32 AM (#3892775)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

When I see a thread like this I think "OH good, here's a chance to learn about grammar". The topic of grammar quickly evolves into personal reprisals.

You see, my angular gyrus is not dedicated to language. Instead automatic language function does not exist for me. My workaround is to process information bilaterally and send information back and forth between hemispheres. This bicameral processing takes more time in real time speech but makes for more interesting writing. Some things get lost in the translation and that is mostly proper names. I don't know what's going on in the la Broca speech region in the frontal cortex, but being male and having only the left region as opposed women who have one on each side, may be respondsible for language difficulty.

This spectrum condition called dyslexia appears as soon as kindergarten or 1st grade. The strategies being taught to dyslexic children today are much different and detailed than my early methods.

Vivre l'differance.

---

08 Dec 17 - 07:00 AM (#3892777)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Its a small change but we used to say "I read it -in- the newspaper", when newspapers had an inside, but technology has changed so we often say 'I read it -on- the Guardian, or on Brietbart' or whatever.

Its what is on (the screen) not what is in the screen.

---

08 Dec 17 - 08:23 PM (#3892896)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

We really need to give up on decimation. Even if the word hadn't acquired its modern usage, just think: no army these days ever kills one-tenth of its own soldiers. The word would retain some mystical, arcane, redundant meaning only and would probably die away. But we've hung on to it by giving it a meaning beyond its literal past. I think that's really good meself. Now excuse me as I'm just off into the kitchen to decimate that leftover slab of lasagne...

Good word!

---

08 Dec 17 - 09:44 PM (#3892903)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

I agree, Steve. And I pity that poor lasagne. (I'm curious. Did you know how to spell 'lasagne' right off the bat, or did you have to look it up? I would have to look it up.)

Today I read a quotation that's right on point for this thread. I have to paraphrase:

People will forget what you did, and people will forget what you said. But people will always remember how you made them feel.
            ~ Maya Angelou

Those who feel free to make others feel small by correcting their usage should remember that.

---

09 Dec 17 - 03:55 AM (#3892920)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

I quoted Orwell' essay earlier on because one of the points he makes is that people sometimes use words or phrases in order to sound more "impressive", rather than to sound simpler and clearer. They think words such as decimate and enormity are somehow more meaningful - even when they don't fully understand the

"The enormity of the task was beyond him" is used to mean "The huge size of the task was beyond him", when it actually means "The vile nature of the task was beyond him".

---

09 Dec 17 - 03:57 AM (#3892921)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

And the enormity of typing on this feckin' iPad keypad is beyond me!

---

09 Dec 17 - 05:56 AM (#3892940)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Lasagna can be given an evocative power beyond deliciousness depending on the writer. "Helena had given birth just last Tuesday to beautiful little Tiffany. Helena was in wonderful spirits but her vagina still looked like a punched lasagna."

You gonna finish that slice Steve?

---

09 Dec 17 - 06:43 AM (#3892953)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mr Red

from splitting infinitives

WOT? U spekin Latin or sumpin?

There are scholars far more erudite than I (or me), let us just say professors of English at Oxford University, who claim it is not possible to split an infinitive in English.

First find your infinitive.

Don't argue with me, I just use English to communicate. Take your grievance up with the professor.

---

09 Dec 17 - 07:41 AM (#3892967)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Nigel Parsons

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Dec 17 - 08:23 PM

We really need to give up on decimation.

Hear hear!
Let's go back to pounds shillings and pence :-)

---

09 Dec 17 - 08:37 AM (#3892975)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

Y'all are so right.

Vive la difference, indeed. With an accent on the e after the fs. I don't remember html either.

---

09 Dec 17 - 08:43 AM (#3892977)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Will Fly

One of my favourite sites...

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/gobbledygook-generator.html

---

09 Dec 17 - 08:47 AM (#3892979)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"To" is not part of the infinitive. That's the point. Except that grammarians argue that point and there are different interpretations of "infinitive," but the argument is sufficient for the ditching of even the hint of that silly don't-split-it rule.

I'm very happy to see "decimation" remain in common currency, Nigel. Your point was right on the money. That's my one pence worth. Now excuse me as I have 2p off to buy the paper.

---

10 Dec 17 - 09:08 AM (#3893171)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: The Sandman

Now excuse me as I have 2p off to buy the paper.
An example of an unclear statement, do you mean you have to go off to buy a newspaper or do you mean you have a voucher worth 2 pence which you must use to buy a newspaper?

---

10 Dec 17 - 09:19 AM (#3893174)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Will, An article on me in the Democrat and Chronicle used a title with the word gobbledegook in it since I employed the word to describe propaganda and obfuscation by some government agencies.
Instead the word was used to describe my statement, clever bastards.

---

10 Dec 17 - 04:56 PM (#3893236)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

I like to leave you in suspenders, Dick.

---

13 Dec 17 - 08:23 AM (#3893708)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

Um, "to" *is* part of the infinitive in English, that is why "to boldly go" splits the infinitive.

---

13 Dec 17 - 10:26 AM (#3893737)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

It's far worse splitting your trousers...

---

13 Dec 17 - 10:29 AM (#3893738)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

You have infinite trousers?

---

13 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM (#3893740)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

the waistband is expanding outwards at an an alarming rate..
and there are frequent uncomfortably big bangs in the rear...

---

13 Dec 17 - 02:49 PM (#3893783)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Cosmology aside, we have all heard what Steve eats. How does he remain svelte? If I ate that much I'd be 18 stone.

---

13 Dec 17 - 03:01 PM (#3893785)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: punkfolkrocker

Well I've gone from 15 stone of gym honed muscle to over 18 stone of flab since I joined mudcat...

Maybe I've needed to spend too much time sat on my arse double checking, then rechecking, all my spelling and grammar before risking posting to threads...???

---

13 Dec 17 - 08:29 PM (#3893856)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"Um, "to" *is* part of the infinitive in English, that is why "to boldly go" splits the infinitive."


Not necessarily. "Mrs Steve had me clean the kitchen this evening" contains the infinitive "clean." No "to" required. The rule against splitting infinitives that allegedly included "to" was a Victorian invention. Many of the great poets, John Donne and Shakespeare included, split "to" infinitives for reasons of poetic licence. All power to their elbows!

But the point is this: "to boldly go" is beautiful English, so to hell with the naysayers. "Boldly to go," or "to go boldly" pale in comparison. English isn't about rule-makers in ivory towers. It's about wot us bloody plebs prattle on abaht in us daily lives, yeah?...

---

15 Dec 17 - 08:05 AM (#3894091)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

I didn't say all tos are parts of infinitives, nor that all infinitives have tos. In your example there is no To to be part of the infinitive, but if there were, it would be, as I said.

And I'm not sure that in your example clean is in the infinitive, from my English-as-a-foreign-language classes.

I completely agree that there is no current rule against splitting the infinitive and that to boldly go is way better than either alternative, but I stick to my point that when the infinitive is in the form to verb, that to is part of that infinitive.

Gimme another hair, this one's gone to Croatia.

Split, get it? Bwa ha ha ha ha.

---

15 Dec 17 - 08:20 AM (#3894093)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Mrs Steve had me clean the kitchen.

Mrs Steve obliged me to clean the kitchen.

Both sentences contain an infinitive.

---

17 Dec 17 - 02:46 AM (#3894269)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: The Sandman

how about mrs steve obliged me to desist from verbosity,or mre steve had medeist from loquacity

---

17 Dec 17 - 05:34 AM (#3894295)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Verbosity? My posts to this thread have been pretty short.

I ate a loquat in Florence in May and kept the seeds. I now have a flourishing loquat bush that's going out into the garden in the spring. My garden will be loquacious.

---

17 Dec 17 - 09:57 PM (#3894448)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

I think that "Mrs. Steve had me clean the kitchen" is merely an idiom. Once analyzed, it makes no sense. We've simply heard it so many times we know what is meant.   

Why? Synonyms for 'had' are 'owned' and 'possessed.' Can we say

Mrs. Steve owned me clean the kitchen? No.
Mrs. Steve possessed me clean the kitchen? No

Saying that 'clean' is an infinitive does nothing to make sense out of an illogical construction.

However that may be, good on you for helping her out, Steve. I find that cleaning the kitchen is a good time for singing.

---

18 Dec 17 - 02:30 AM (#3894456)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: The Sandman

Steve, a far as Iam aware does not sing but he does play the harmonica. Confessions of a harmonica player blues,
I woke up this morning feeling sad and blue.
mrs steve told me i had jobs to do
get out the vinegar babe and clean those winders
get the shovel and clean up the cinders
I got the kitchen cleaning blues

---

18 Dec 17 - 10:31 AM (#3894513)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

If the "to" is sous-entendu, or whatever the English phrase is for goes without saying, it is still part of the infinitive. But I should look that up.

---

18 Dec 17 - 10:45 AM (#3894516)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Just think of all those Latin infinitives. All single words!

As "had me clean the kitchen" is a pretty popular construction, it's standard English. What makes English English is entirely the way people use it. Even a novelist might use a thing like that and it would hardly raise an eyebrow. As such, it's vulnerable to linguistic analysis, and the word "clean" in that context has to be explained. It's a verb all right. There can be no other explanation than that it's the infinitive case. What if I'd said "she MADE me clean the kitchen?" Same thang!

---

18 Dec 17 - 11:49 AM (#3894530)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

I bow to all y'all's ken and appreciate the correction! Keep on keeping on!

"Beware of incorrect past tenses that have snuck into the language."

---

19 Dec 17 - 10:46 AM (#3894716)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

Sure, there's another explanation. It's an idiom.

Thanks for the lyrics, Sandman.

---

19 Dec 17 - 03:08 PM (#3894754)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

If a construction is used often enough for long enough by enough people, it's standard English, idiom or not. Let's at least try to retain the concept that there's nothing more democratic than the language we use in the ways we use it. Democracy that doesn't need money! Wow!

---

19 Dec 17 - 03:35 PM (#3894759)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

There are different forms of "common usage" in different parts of the country (talking UK here), which are equally well understood and taken to be correct in those areas even if the hard-line grammarians might dispute this, e.g.
S half of England - Your face needs to be washed.
Further N in England - Your face needs washing.
Parts of Scotland - Your face needs washed.
Cork - Would ye ever be after washing yer face?

---

19 Dec 17 - 04:28 PM (#3894769)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Swinton, Lancashire - Get thi neck wayshed.

:D tG

---

19 Dec 17 - 05:44 PM (#3894777)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jackaroodave

Leenia, "bare infinitive" is the common term for a verb in an infinitive construction without "to." Linguists consider verbs following modals (can, will, etc) infinitive forms as well, as they don't carry tense or aspect. There is a list of other uses of the bare infinitive here:

https://www.englishgrammar.org/bare-infinitive/

The grammar police won't arrest you for calling them all idioms, of course, but usually the term applies to idiosyncratic, nonproductive forms: If a new verb comes into the language, however, it will be used with causative "have" in the bare infinitive form. "They had him schmerk"; "They bade her schmerk"; "They would do anything except schmerk" etc.

Tattie, in northern West Virginia (and probably elsewhere nearby) "needs washed" is a common form that invariably throws visitors for a loop. My former wife, who was from here, when asked, "Why do you folks say 'something needs washed,'" replied, quite sensibly, "Because it's dirty?" Settlers in this area call themselves Scots-Irish, and there may be something to that.

---

19 Dec 17 - 06:12 PM (#3894780)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jackaroodave

I wonder if prescriptivists also object to splitting the verb from the phrase-initiating word when it's not "to"? "She could do anything a politician was expected to do except cheerfully take a bribe." vs "As a politician, she was expected to take a bribe cheerfully."

---

19 Dec 17 - 07:53 PM (#3894790)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Or, Jackaroodave, you could always rewrite it in order to include the dreaded split infinitive, thus:

"She could do anything a politician was expected to do except to cheerfully take a bribe."

Viola!

---

20 Dec 17 - 02:19 AM (#3894809)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jackaroodave

Hmmm, not crazy about that "except to," Steve. ;-)

I confess, descriptivist though I may be, it's nearly impossible for me to "split" an infinitive. I revere Miss Pincus, my junior high school English teacher, this side idolatry, but she has a lot to answer for.

---

20 Dec 17 - 06:08 AM (#3894841)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mr Red

Democracy that doesn't need money! Wow!

But money helps. People of a certain age (in the UK at least) refer to vacuum cleaners as Hoovers. I have heard younger peeps saying Dyson. In this day and age of Fakebook** and its manipulators - I would posit there is money swirling around there. Do you search the internet (or the WWW) or are you a "Goggle for it" kinda person? It ainta hurting them, now is it?


**other mendacities are available.

---

20 Dec 17 - 06:32 AM (#3894850)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

I have noticed, particularly on US TV shows, taxis referred to as Ubers. Doesn't take long for these things to be become common parlance. How long has Uber been going?

DtG

---

20 Dec 17 - 06:45 AM (#3894854)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

An elderly couple knocked on my door last Sunday morning. All they wanted to talk about was vacuum cleaners.

"Bloody 'ell," I thought, "Not more Jehoover's Witnesses..."

---

20 Dec 17 - 09:14 AM (#3894881)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Mrrzy

The man who'd pun would pick a pocket! Points to anyone recognizing that reference.

---

20 Dec 17 - 09:32 AM (#3894886)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jackaroodave

Samuel Johnson?

---

20 Dec 17 - 10:16 AM (#3894897)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Most recently Paul Bettany, actor & cellist, re-popularized the quip in 'Master and Commander but Jacko is correct.
Pointing to Sam the Man Johnson,
does anyone here have Tourette's?

---

20 Dec 17 - 10:51 AM (#3894905)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Tattie Bogle

There's no polite answer to that!

---

20 Dec 17 - 10:56 AM (#3894907)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

Knock knock.
Who's there?
Man with Tourette's
Man with Tour...
Fuck off!

---

20 Dec 17 - 10:58 AM (#3894908)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

grin still burning...Those were the best laughs of the day

---

20 Dec 17 - 07:18 PM (#3895003)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

What do we want?

A cure for Tourette's!

When do we want it?

C*NT!

---

20 Dec 17 - 11:01 PM (#3895030)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: leeneia

To be serious for a moment, I just read that fewer than 10% of sufferers from Tourette's Syndrome curse and swear. Most have other symptoms, but I can't remember what they are.

---

21 Dec 17 - 01:40 PM (#3895183)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

It ain't over till the fat lady sings!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/damian-green-sacked-met-police-bob-quick-neil-lewis-porn-images-pornography-parliamen

---

21 Dec 17 - 06:55 PM (#3895227)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Duff link in wrong thread. Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...

---

22 Dec 17 - 12:00 PM (#3895281)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Iains

For a twerp that cannot make links you are a very rude, patronising little lad shaw. Well into your dotage, or second childhood are you? And of course you have never mistakenly posted into the wrong thread, have you?
Try a little less meths in your cocoa, it might perhaps make you slightly more pleasant. But I suppose you can judge a person by the company he keeps. I find now fines are handed out, for dogs fouling footpaths, I no longer have to dodge company of a similar ilk.

---

22 Dec 17 - 12:11 PM (#3895282)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

Looking at all the stuff in the papers and what's written on the Christmas cards we get, it's just occurred to me that I've never written "Xmas" in my life. Well I suppose I have now...

---

22 Dec 17 - 07:17 PM (#3895337)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

"Hmmm, not crazy about that "except to," Steve. ;-) "

Me neither (or, as the yanks might say, me either!)

Actually, I think that one of the problems (certainly one of mine) is that you come up with a construction, review and lovingly embellish it to the point at which anyone reading it would be forced to do a load of mental processing in order to understand it, then cling to it as if it were the precious fruit of your loins - when a far easier thing would be to spend a minute or two ditching the damn thing and completely redrafting your ideas. I think the sign of a really good writer is that his or her stuff possesses crystal clarity of expressed ideas that don't require convoluted metal gymnastics in order to get your head round. We all have to learn the trick of losing our cherished constructions if necessary!

---

22 Dec 17 - 07:27 PM (#3895339)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Jackaroodave

Fer sure, but sometimes keeping it simple is so complicated. Easy reading's vile hard writing.

---

22 Dec 17 - 07:39 PM (#3895340)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

So true!

---

22 Dec 17 - 09:06 PM (#3895356)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Steve Shaw

As Chaucer said,

The life so short, the craft so long to learn,.
Th’ assay so hard, so sharp the conquering,

The secret of good writing is to not make th' assay too hard for everyone else!

---

23 Dec 17 - 03:26 AM (#3895373)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Dave the Gnome

200!

---

24 Dec 17 - 05:52 PM (#3895721)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

I suppose few have the experience of inventing languages in search of a language shared by all. The dyslexic compromise is viewed abstract to some like deciphering atypical song lyrics. It is what it is, like the fantastic diversity of life itself.

Unlike beauty being only in the eye of the beholder, the beauty of phrases shares a cooperation of the speaker's voice and the fun and mental ears of the reader. To me words change color upon each reading whe

---

24 Dec 17 - 05:55 PM (#3895723)
Subject: RE: We must stop correcting grammar
From: Donuel

Whereas a painting is rather static.

---