Question about spelling and grammar in Ireland

brianthebard

sillysausage wrote: »

I don't agree with you on this. There is exact definitions of "who" and "whom" and also a correct place for both. Just because the majority of people, through ignorance or other, use it incorrectly doesn't mean there is "Nothing wrong with it". The same can be applied to "ye". It does mean something and for the most part it is used correctly by people.

But "ye" has been taken out of circulation and replaced with "you", so you are contradicting yourself. "Whom" has also been taken out of circulation to a large degree, its just not needed imo. Its evolution people!

Pgibson wrote: »

I'll get in there first:

"That's all I said."

Incidentally, I have no idea when to use semi-colons versus colons.
Never could figure it out !

.

http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm

Personally (whether its strictly right or wrong) I think of them as similar to a full stop and a comma, but the dot on top means you are continuing on a sentence or idea while using the stop or comma. So a semi colon is used as a pause between two separate but linked statements and the colon is used to introduce or expand on the first idea.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

But "ye" has been taken out of circulation and replaced with "you", so you are contradicting yourself. "Whom" has also been taken out of circulation to a large degree, its just not needed imo. Its evolution people!




http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons.htm

Personally (whether its strictly right or wrong) I think of them as similar to a full stop and a comma, but the dot on top means you are continuing on a sentence or idea while using the stop or comma. So a semi colon is used as a pause between two separate but linked statements and the colon is used to introduce or expand on the first idea.

I certainly would not consider 'ye' to be out of circulation by any means. I head it used quite often.

That 'whom' is not widely used in the vernacular does not mean it is the rules of grammar governing it have ceased to be. I am not suggesting that people use it. I am merely saying that to not use it when required by the rules of grammar to do so is incorrect.

brianthebard

Yes ye is part of the vernacular, you can't complain when one word is kept in and another not. I meant that ye has been taken out of offical teaching, thought that would have been obvious. I am merely saying that I don't really care for rules of grammar or petty letters at the end of a word just because of a vowel.

peanuthead

jaffa20 wrote: »

The english language has so many grammatical rules that we have forgotten. For eg, a sentence is never meant to end with a preposition but people still do it. This could never happen in another language like french as the structure of the sentence could never work. I think once you start to learn another language, you realise how sloppy your own language is.

Eg:

Whom are you angry with

or

With whom are you angry

Imo, both sound stupid in modern day english. Language evolves and if you want to say:

"Who are you angry with" or "who ya angry wi"

Then, i don't see a problem. The ultimate goal of language is for the recipient to understand. If i was a snob and speaking in the former form, many people would look at me blankly and snigger to themselves and i would understand why.

There are different rules for written and spoken English (or any other language for that matter) There are things you can say, which wouldnt necessarily make sense written down, or may make sense but would be grammatically wrong. For example, not many people would say "With whom are you angry" or even "Whom are you angry with" Whom is one of those words that is only used in text/writing, and doesnt really have a place in spoken english anymore. It has become common practice to replace it with the defining "who" instead.

jaffa20

peanuthead wrote: »

There are different rules for written and spoken English (or any other language for that matter) There are things you can say, which wouldnt necessarily make sense written down, or may make sense but would be grammatically wrong. For example, not many people would say "With whom are you angry" or even "Whom are you angry with" Whom is one of those words that is only used in text/writing, and doesnt really have a place in spoken english anymore. It has become common practice to replace it with the defining "who" instead.

There's a rule that says "whom" can't be used in speech That's news to me:rolleyes: Of course it can be used in speech. People make the rules up for themselves and that's why "who" has replaced "whom" in speech. It's pointless in both speech and text anyway.

peanuthead

jaffa20 wrote: »

There's a rule that says "whom" can't be used in speech That's news to me:rolleyes: Of course it can be used in speech. People make the rules up for themselves and that's why "who" has replaced "whom" in speech. It's pointless in both speech and text anyway.

Oh ok, I didnt mean to imply that there was a rule that says whom cant be used in speech, what I meant to say was that, say, from an ESL point of view its taught as a word used for written text only, although the student would be taught the meaning of the word and the context that it should be used in, but they are encouraged not to use it in speech as its not 'natural'. Not my words, but the words of the course coordinator and grammar 'expert' in the UCD applied languages centre (i hated her anyway)

brianthebard

I'm sorry but you are arguing for the use of whom when you make even more basic mistakes such as not capitalising "i" and forgetting inverted commas? Those are conventions that will get you slated in an essay or whatever, unlike whom which no one really cares about, even lecturers I'd wager.

peanuthead

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are arguing for the use of whom when you make even more basic mistakes such as not capitalising "i" and forgetting inverted commas? Those are conventions that will get you slated in an essay or whatever, unlike whom which no one really cares about, even lecturers I'd wager.

ffs, this is hardly an essay now is it?? and I can see where the 'i' is, but I dont see where Im missing the inverted commas!!!!!

EDIT: BTW, I was not arguing with anyone, I was joining into a conversation. I wouldnt argue with anyone over grammar because I dont think I know enough about it to be that ignorant.

brianthebard

cant

I did say you were arguing with someone, but that you were arguing for the use of a word. There's a difference. The reason I mentioned those mistakes is I don't see why you would bother with a silly out dated convention without first making sure the basics are correct.

peanuthead

Okay well, admittedly, I type fast, but didn't learn the proper way (as in fingers properly positioned, using certain fingers for certain keys, etc....) So therefore, the apostrophe (not inverted comma) key is so far away, and alot of hassle for me. But I do add it most times. I suppose I should have made sure one of those times was on a grammar thread.

sillysausage

peanuthead wrote: »

Okay well, admittedly, I type fast, but didn't learn the proper way (as in fingers properly positioned, using certain fingers for certain keys, etc....) So therefore, the apostrophe (not inverted comma) key is so far away, and alot of hassle for me. But I do add it most times. I suppose I should have made sure one of those times was on a grammar thread.

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!

The above is tongue in cheek by the way.

I think this thread is a little pointless. Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant. I think it certainly proves that the teaching of if (grammar) needs to be readdressed.

By the way, I use "ye" almost exclusively and never "you" when referring to a collective. Pretty ever one I grew up with and people around my vicinity would also use "ye".

peanuthead

sillysausage wrote: »

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!
.

No, you know, looking back on it now it reminds me of this girl I used to know, haha, we used to laugh at her because she would say

"I can't do that, will ye learn me it?" haha

Brian

I was never taught Grammar in Secondary School here in Ireland, which is a pity. I would consider myself to have a reasonably good command of English*, and it pained me to hear a [Leaving Certificate] classmate say such things as "I done my essay on football". The English teacher didn't correct them either.

* I'm slightly obsessive about it too. I'm interested in "whom", I know what "its" means, and I say "If I were".

SoCal90046

sillysausage wrote: »

Technically, "proper" is rarely used in the "correct" context. "Proper" isn't a shortened version of "properly" and usually the correct word should be, well, "correct". That's me being a pedant!

The above is tongue in cheek by the way.

I think this thread is a little pointless. Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant. I think it certainly proves that the teaching of if (grammar) needs to be readdressed.

By the way, I use "ye" almost exclusively and never "you" when referring to a collective. Pretty ever one I grew up with and people around my vicinity would also use "ye".

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

Insect Overlord

SoCal90046 wrote: »

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

In the time it took me to type this response, an imortant realisation struck me: the importance of grammar (with the key exception of spelling mistakes) depends entirely on the context in which one is writing. Modern, dynamic spoken language has its place in literature. So long as the writer is a) conscious of his/her intended audience, b) aware of exactly what is being said and c) aware of how it is being said, then they should not be hassled for writing that does not meet "the standard" in terms of grammar.
If, on the other hand, the writer is ignorant of their errors, then they should be informed so as to make self-correction and improvement possible in the future.
It is when such ignorance of correct grammar is blatantly obvious that the blame should be directed towards educators.

SoCal90046

An Fhile wrote: »

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

In the time it took me to type this response, an imortant realisation struck me: the importance of grammar (with the key exception of spelling mistakes) depends entirely on the context in which one is writing. Modern, dynamic spoken language has its place in literature. So long as the writer is a) conscious of his/her intended audience, b) aware of exactly what is being said and c) aware of how it is being said, then they should not be hassled for writing that does not meet "the standard" in terms of grammar.
If, on the other hand, the writer is ignorant of their errors, then they should be informed so as to make self-correction and improvement possible in the future.
It is when such ignorance of correct grammar is blatantly obvious that the blame should be directed towards educators.

What you're addressing isn't the point I was making. In this quote

Grammar is black and white. There is no grey area as regards to dialect etc. It's either right or wrong. Popular use and majority rules don't even come into it, so in reality most of the posts are redundant.

A generalization is made that isn't supportable. I am not saying that there are no rules, but to state that they're black and white or, by implication, absolute, isn't supported by observation. In many parts of the world, English is spoken in a fashion by one group that may be termed grammatically incorrect by another. There are differences among dialects or varieties of the language. In fact in any language, a dialect is defined by its distinct grammar rules.

There are rules in any language that aid in communication. In English, there aren't absolute rules for grammar, spelling or punctuation. The rules differ between the US and the UK, between the UK and India, in fact among all the branches of the English language.

You used the term "officially recognized standard," which I think is a misnomer. (By the way, if you were watching, you just noticed a major difference in the punctuation rules of the US versus British English!) The more appropriate term may be generally accepted version (not standard) or generally recognized, but there isn't any official standard; at least, there's no governing body out there setting and maintaining standards.

Pgibson

Powerhouse wrote: »

An American journalist once said that the word 'whom' was invented "to make everyone sound like a butler", so I am surprised that it's not bigger in Cork!

There would be a lot of "whoms" and "shalls" and butlers and maids and manservants in Montenotte all right.

(I wouldn't be allowed around that area..I'm too common.)

.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes ye is part of the vernacular, you can't complain when one word is kept in and another not. I meant that ye has been taken out of offical teaching, thought that would have been obvious. I am merely saying that I don't really care for rules of grammar or petty letters at the end of a word just because of a vowel.

I am not complaining about any words being left out of the vernacular. In fact, I have said that the spoken language does not and could not have a standard.

I referred to a few situations where people get things completely wrong on a regular basis, or else situations where because of a lack of teaching of grammar most people would not know when and why 'who' becomes 'whom'. That this has disappeared from the vernacular is neither here nor there. Grammatical rules still apply and my point still stands.

Powerhouse

SoCal90046 wrote: »

I'd argue that grammar isn't black and white. Unlike other languages, English doesn't have an academy or some other recognized authority that defines standards. As others have pointed out, the English language is dynamic, with what's deemed acceptable differing in the different parts of the world.

There are many different tomes on grammar and within given region, there are often generally accepted standards, but I think that, when speaking about grammar, saying that there are absolute rules in the English language is probably pushing it a little.

This is distorting it really. There would be overwhelming agreement on points of grammar among differnent recognised authorities. There are indeed many absolute rules in the sense that there are conventions and rules which are very broadly accepted. The mere definition of a language requires such structure and convention.

brianthebard

An Fhile wrote: »

I understand your point here, and I appreciate the reasoning behind it, yet I disagree with what you are suggesting. It must be recognised that there are absolute rules in the English language. Without this unique scaffold of rules it would be impossible to define English as a language. This is true of nearly every language on the planet. The syntax, spelling, punctuation and intonation of sentences are governed by an accepted set of standards.

What causes confusion is that, as has been pointed out, most people are never fully versed in these standards when it comes to writing in English. This is due to several factors, with inadequate education in this area a prime example.
However, it is in this instance that your point about languages being dynamic comes to the fore: due to the spread of the language across regions, countries and continents, certain aspects of it have been diluted and/or enriched by other languages and cultures. The English spoken in the USA differs dramatically to that spoken every day in Jamaica, which in turn sounds little like the English spoken in rural parts of Ireland. Accents and colloquialisms are accepted without question in these areas, as they rightly should be. However, the spoken language of a small parish or a large city is very rarely seen in print. When it is written down, most notably for plays/drama, it is celebrated for being true to life (as it adds realism to the characters. See John B. Keane's plays for example). On the other hand, if one were to compose an English academic-style essay, their use of "vernacular" language would likely be frowned upon, as it would not match officially accepted standards.

This does not exactly prove the rules of English, rather it proves that some departments are rather stuffy about how you write your essays. If you write a philosophy essay its perfectly acceptable to refer to "things" and "stuff", which wouldn't get you anywhere in English. The point is that there is not a single code of English but several codes according to departments. No different to the accents example really except you hold high culture up to be in some way in control of English.
Also you seem to ignore the fact that English is first and foremost a vernacular, a language spoken by peasants that only in the last few hundred years because widespread in "the academy" that you feel sets the rules. And in addition to that English has only been taught as a subject for less than two hundred years. All this points to the fact that education attempts to wrap a framework around the vernacular, but it doesn't have to be adhered to.
Btw, its the same in a lot of countries, but the level of "framing" differs. France has a body exclusively in charge of all rules and regulations in the French language. The reason this body exists is not because French is a wonderfully structured language which cannot be spoken in any way but one, but in fact it is extremely messy, comprising multiple dialects that often have little in common, and it was deemed necessary by Napoleon to find a way of uniting them with a common language. So in fact if a language appears to be supremely structured and cannot allow for multiple expressions of the same thing, it may be that the opposite is true.

SoCal90046 wrote: »

You used the term "officially recognized standard," which I think is a misnomer. (By the way, if you were watching, you just noticed a major difference in the punctuation rules of the US versus British English!) The more appropriate term may be generally accepted version (not standard) or generally recognized, but there isn't any official standard; at least, there's no governing body out there setting and maintaining standards.

:eek: did you just put your full stop before the bracket??? Omg teh craziness!

Hagar

[quote=peanuthead;57613372]Okay well, admittedly, I type fast, but didn't learn the proper way (as in fingers properly positioned, using certain fingers for certain keys, etc....) So therefore, the apostrophe (not inverted comma)alot key is so far away, and of hassle for me. But I do add it most times. I suppose I should have made sure one of those times was on a grammar thread.[/quote]
Depending on the skin you are using, you may be able to see the text highlighted and emboldened in red above, each of which is a grammatical error of one type or another. Quite a lot for such a small passage don't you think?

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to correct the faults and re-submit the post.

:pac:

Pgibson

Powerhouse wrote: »

That this has disappeared from the vernacular is neither here nor there. Grammatical rules still apply and my point still stands.

Hark to me Powerhouse.Lend me your ears.Just try putting the word "thou" or "shalt" into a modern sentence!

11th Commandment:
Thou shalt not make pointless grammatical rules about words which have sunk into utter obscurity.

.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

This does not exactly prove the rules of English, rather it proves that some departments are rather stuffy about how you write your essays. If you write a philosophy essay its perfectly acceptable to refer to "things" and "stuff", which wouldn't get you anywhere in English. The point is that there is not a single code of English but several codes according to departments.

You are talking about styles of writing promoted by different university departments which is an entirely different matter to writing good formal English. "Things" and "stuff" are perfectly good words in standard English -words don't have to sound posh to be good English.

If such words are relevant and the best choice of word in the specific situation - rather than waffly alternatives to a word you cannot think of at the time - why on earth would an English department have difficulty with them?

This is quite a separate consideration from writing grammatically poor English.

If people are seriously arguing that there are no rules and no formal grammatical structures for English, then why not go the whole way and argue that it is in fact just a different dialect of German or Dutch since they have the same roots? If there is no formal grammatical structure to English then its status as a distinct language must be dubious.

Powerhouse

Pgibson wrote: »

Hark to me Powerhouse.Lend me your ears.Just try putting the word "thou" or "shalt" into a modern sentence!

11th Commandment:
Thou shalt not make pointless grammatical rules about words which have sunk into utter obscurity.

.

Yet again you are confusing vernacular dialectal English with formal standard English grammar. When you have worked out the difference we can discuss it further. Though for someone who found out only yesterday that there is no standard for spoken English you have come a long way in your flexibility regarding the spoken word!

brianthebard

Powerhouse wrote: »

You are talking about styles of writing promoted by different university departments which is an entirely different matter to writing good formal English. "Things" and "stuff" are perfectly good words in standard English -words don't have to sound posh to be good English.

Eh yes I was talking about uni departments cause that's what the user I quoted mentioned. Is that so hard to follow?

If such words are relevant and the best choice of word in the specific situation - rather than waffly alternatives to a word you cannot think of at the time - why on earth would an English department have difficulty with them?

Huh? So its not ok to use who instead of whom, but a less useful word in an essay because you couldn't think of a better one is ok for an English essay? Wtf is your point powerhouse, its becoming increasingly obtuse.

This is quite a separate consideration from writing grammatically poor English.

If people are seriously arguing that there are no rules and no formal grammatical structures for English, then why not go the whole way and argue that it is in fact just a different dialect of German or Dutch since they have the same roots? If there is no formal grammatical structure to English then its status as a distinct language must be dubious.

yes indeed why not. lets go further, we are all speaking indo european!!! Ok sorted. The truth is powerhouse, and I think you know this but refuse to recognise it, is that language arises first, and then rules follow. Language is not beholden to those rules, and can be changed as the user sees fit. Yes for the purposes of homogeneity we implicitly agree to adhere to the rules, but that doesn't mean we are slaves to them.

Thoie

While we're whining about things, can I ask all receptionists not to tell me "He'll be with you momentarily" please? I was hoping to have a slightly longer conversation than that!

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh yes I was talking about uni departments cause that's what the user I quoted mentioned. Is that so hard to follow?

I never questioned why you were talking about uni departments at all - why you think it might be hard to follow when I never suggested otherwise beats me. I simply said you were wrong to thing that words like "things" and "stuff" would be unacceptable in an English department. Why would they not be acceptable? They are perfectly good words.


Huh? So its not ok to use who instead of whom, but a less useful word in an essay because you couldn't think of a better one is ok for an English essay? Wtf is your point powerhouse, its becoming increasingly obtuse.

You seem to suggesting that I said the precise opposite to what I actually said. I said that "things" and "stuff" would be perfectly acceptable in an English essay as long as they were not waffly alternatives to a word you cannot bring to mind. And yes, it is not okay to use 'who' where 'whom' should be used, and that you don't know when that is doesn't change that. BTW, I think you meant 'obscure' when you said 'obtuse'. It is not my point that is becaoming increasily 'obtuse' it seems.


yes indeed why not. lets go further, we are all speaking indo european!!! Ok sorted. The truth is powerhouse, and I think you know this but refuse to recognise it, is that language arises first, and then rules follow.

So are you arguing that English is a dialect of Dutch then? This should be interesting.


Language is not beholden to those rules, and can be changed as the user sees fit. Yes for the purposes of homogeneity we implicitly agree to adhere to the rules, but that doesn't mean we are slaves to them.


I love this! There are rules but they can be ignored as the user sees fit!
And what a breakthrough we have made to find out that a language comes before rules! There goes my plans to make up rules and wait and see if a language emerges to fit them!:D You couldn't make this stuff up!

Perhaphs like a previous poster you do not fully understand the difference between spoken and written English, but formal standard English has rules of syntax, grammar and spelling. Deal with it.

brianthebard

Dude you can't even quote right, I don't think I'll be taking lessons in English from you.

You seem to suggesting that I said the precise opposite to what I actually said. I said that "things" and "stuff" would be perfectly acceptable in an English essay as long as they were not waffly alternatives to a word you cannot bring to mind. And yes, it is not okay to use 'who' where 'whom' should be used, and that you don't know when that is doesn't change that. BTW, I think you meant 'obscure' when you said 'obtuse'. It is not my point that is becaoming increasily 'obtuse' it seems.

Have you ever done an essay for a uni English department? It may shock you to know that they won't mark you down, or even acknowledge the incorrect use of who instead of whom.

Brian

Improper use of BBCode != Bad at English.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Dude you can't even quote right, I don't think I'll be taking lessons in English from you.


Have you ever done an essay for a uni English department? It may shock you to know that they won't mark you down, or even acknowledge the incorrect use of who instead of whom.

What a load of issue-dodging nonsense. :cool: