Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Question about spelling and grammar in Ireland

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 394 ✭✭hayser


    As a person who works in education I feel that a part of this problem could be attributed to Jolly Phonics in years to come. I love the concept of it and use it every day as it is great for getting young children to begin to learn how to read, write and put words together. However when I work with older children who use Jolly Phonics I notice they misspell certain words. The other day a child write "skwrul" instead of "squirrel" and this child is very intelligent. I know as the children get older most of them will realise how to spell the words properly but some won't and may continue to be bad spellers. This is where I feel a mix of Jolly Phonics and sight words can be useful.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    What a load of issue-dodging nonsense. :cool:

    The only issue is your inability to think outside "omg grammar is absolute!"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    SoCal90046 wrote: »
    I have a question about the educational system in Ireland; I don't know where to ask the question, but under the circumstances, the creative writing forum seems to be the best location.

    Based on the threads that I have read at boards.ie, I am forced to conclude that some students in Ireland aren't taught the basics of English grammar and spelling. I have read posts by clearly intelligent people whose standard of writing--basic things like syntax and spelling--is rather poor. Admittedly, sampling an online discussion board isn't representative of the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I have been struck by how poorly some people write. Is grammar and spelling something that's simply not emphasized in some schools?

    I have news for you
    This is the internet
    People don't care about all that crack on the internet


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Don't confuse you not caring with everyone not caring.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Brian


    This is why we can't have nice things.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,130 ✭✭✭Rosita


    The only issue is your inability to think outside "omg grammar is absolute!"



    By and large, grammar is absolute.

    As Powerhouse has said, you are confusing writing styles with grammar and spoken English with written English.

    And chances are if you have come across an English department in a university that can't differentiate who/whom then it is likely that it is simply because the person marking the essay knows no better.

    The basic rules of grammar (and who/whom would be fairly basic to anyone who has taken the time to pick up a grammar book) would be applied rigorously by any English department which expects formal writing in its essays which would be them all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 367 ✭✭Diairist


    In New York the 'broken window' crime strategy worked well because (in summary) if you caught the person who broke a window now, you wouldn't have to chase down a murderer in the future. Shiv, the grammatical equivalent is your point: when we dump apostrophes spelling and grammar are next to suffer. My heart goes out to the oceans of French people arriving in Ireland trying to use the present perfect and finding out their teacher's accent and grammar are irrelevant to 21st century Ireland.

    I mean 'I've been studying this for around 2 months...' is like SOOOO 90s.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    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!

    From a scientific point of view grammatical rules aught merely to be an agreed "protocol of communication" so that we understand each other.

    Just like the way the computers we use talk to each other.

    P.S. If I diverge from an unspoken agreed standard in spoken English whilst (while) speaking I would probably be stared at.

    An agreed standard for the spoken word is there all right!

    .





    .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 406 ✭✭Pgibson


    I have news for you
    This is the internet
    People don't care about all that crack on the internet

    The correct spelling in Hiberno-English is craic.

    The word itself is not Irish however.
    It is stolen from English.

    "Cracking good time"
    "Crack a joke."
    etc.........

    .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    An agreed standard for the spoken word is there all right!

    I often don't rhyme the last lines of my poems
    as there are a few words that must be still said
    and the rhyme bucket holds only the odds
    and never the ends


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    Pgibson wrote: »
    From a scientific point of view grammatical rules aught merely to be an agreed "protocol of communication" so that we understand each other.

    Just like the way the computers we use talk to each other.

    P.S. If I diverge from an unspoken agreed standard in spoken English whilst (while) speaking I would probably be stared at.

    An agreed standard for the spoken word is there all right!



    If calling standard English a 'protocol of communication' makes it easier for you to process then so be it.

    There is of course, as I have said time and again, no spoken standard in English which explains the wide variety of dialects the world over. It is the teaching of standard formal English in schools over the years that keeps English speakers mutually intelligble as it means that the bulk of spoken English is in fact close to standard English.

    English language television has speeded up this process immeasurably and it has tended to be largely free from dialects which vary significantly from received pronunciation. A Dutch person - or any non-native English speaker - will learn the written standard English as the basis for their spoken language. They will not be sent off into the wilderness and told to come to some informal agreement with someone on the language.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    Pgibson wrote: »
    The correct spelling in Hiberno-English is craic.

    The word itself is not Irish however.
    It is stolen from English.

    "Cracking good time"
    "Crack a joke."
    etc.........

    .


    How on earth do you know what spelling Irish people are using when they use the word 'crack'?

    There is indeed a Gaelic Irish word 'craic' which roughly translates as conversation and banter, but there is no evidence that I know of which confirms whether the 'crack' used in spoken English in Ireland is derived from Gaelic or the Old English 'crack'.

    Only if there was a written standard for spoken English could you possibly know this which demonstrates nicely the difficulty with much of what you have written.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    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.

    Again, we're going in circles. What is a recognized authority for the English language? Lots of people may agree on various issues, but the point is that, within the English language, there are groups that have their own syntax, words and evening spelling, which wouldn't be readily understood by all speakers of the language. There certainly are broadly accepted rules (for want of a better term) for the language, but to use the term absolute is something that I don't find appropriate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


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

    Actually, in the US, every book on grammar that I have read (I now have almost forty) dictates that a period (the full stop) or comma is always included within trailing quotes. In British English, the convention is to include the full stop or comma if it's part of the quote. US and British rules agree on the placement of colons and semicolons within a quote. I have always been puzzled that there is a difference on this point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    trailing quotes? Can you write an example plz?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


    hayser wrote: »
    As a person who works in education I feel that a part of this problem could be attributed to Jolly Phonics in years to come. I love the concept of it and use it every day as it is great for getting young children to begin to learn how to read, write and put words together. However when I work with older children who use Jolly Phonics I notice they misspell certain words. The other day a child write "skwrul" instead of "squirrel" and this child is very intelligent. I know as the children get older most of them will realise how to spell the words properly but some won't and may continue to be bad spellers. This is where I feel a mix of Jolly Phonics and sight words can be useful.


    English is strange in that when it comes to spelling it pays homage to both its historic and phonetic roots. Some people will argue that when we learn to read the English language, we learn to recognize the words much as one would read a Chinese character. (I hope you noticed the deliberate use of a pronoun that is currently in intensive care!) You may have read the following paragraph before, but I find it interesting that it’s so easy to read.

    Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

    The first time people see English written in that fashion, it's surprising that the brain can process and understand the words so quickly. I have concluded that we're seeing patterns and can quickly interpret the correct words from the context in which they’re placed. It doesn't surprise me that children have challenges spelling. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that creative spelling, like that word skwrul, might be a sign of intelligence. (Of course, if the parents helped with the homework, it's a sign of something else!)

    Noah Webster was a famous American lexicographer who decided to "repair" spelling in the American usage of the English language; he gave us such words as color rather than colour. He also standardized the letter "z" in words like, well, standardize. He even went further. He made emendations to every word in the English language that weren’t phonetically spelled (spelt is used in some parts of the world). These dramatic changes to spelling weren't widely accepted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    SoCal90046 wrote: »
    Again, we're going in circles. What is a recognized authority for the English language? Lots of people may agree on various issues, but the point is that, within the English language, there are groups that have their own syntax, words and evening spelling, which wouldn't be readily understood by all speakers of the language. There certainly are broadly accepted rules (for want of a better term) for the language, but to use the term absolute is something that I don't find appropriate.



    If there are no absolute rules than there are no rules, only customs. If you find the term absolute inappropriate then you are saying that it can be made up as we go along.

    There are a number of recognised authoritative grammars on the language (which those who know what they are talking about here will be familiar with while those who don't shouldn't be commenting anyway) largely still based on Lowth's Grammar and there is huge agreement between them.

    But going on what you have said, I would like to know of a group which - to use a very basic example - argues that it is okay to use the personal pronoun 'I' as the object of a sentence and 'me' as the subject of a sentence in formal written English.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


    trailing quotes? Can you write an example plz?

    I'll use the term "closing quotes" or "closing quotation marks."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    If there are no absolute rules than there are no rules, only customs. If you find the term absolute inappropriate then you are saying that it can be made up as we go along.

    There are a number of recognised authoritative grammars on the language (which those who know what they are talking about here will be familiar with while those who don't shouldn't be commenting anyway) largely still based on Lowth's Grammar and there is huge agreement between them.

    But going on what you have said, I would like to know of a group which - to use a very basic example - argues that it is okay to use the personal pronoun 'I' as the object of a sentence and 'me' as the subject of a sentence in formal written English.

    No. The concept of customs or generally accepted rules as opposed to an absolute standard doesn't mean what I think you're trying to say: anarchy.

    I'll call you to task on the idea of recognized bodies--you're actually making my point. Rules and conventions work because they're generally accepted. There's no equivalent of a legislative body dictating rules for the language that sets absolute standards. Conventions for the language differ from one part of the world to the next.

    Your third comment is silly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    SoCal90046 wrote: »

    Your third comment is silly.

    Can I make opne important point? You have written on numerous occasions here that there is no one recognised governing body on the English language. We know that, and I have never suggested there is. All I have suggested is that there is such a thing as formal standard English. Whether this comes about as a standard that has evolved by general agreement or by dint of a UN resolation is neither here nor there. What this formal standard English does have is many absolute rules.

    Your answering of my third point which invites you to point out why this is not an absolute rule makes my argument for me. If you could dismiss this as not an absolute rule in formal English accepted anywhere presumably you would but you can't.

    This is an absolute rule - call it a convention or whatever you like after that - which no authority would dispute. There are many of these as I have said. How you think there are none is beyond me.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    "who" and "whom"

    I think grammerians just want a complete matrix of pronouns
    Each changing in form depending on case

    SUBJECT | OBJECT
    she
    her
    he
    him
    they
    them
    we
    us
    you
    you (guess I was wrong)
    who
    whom


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    An Fhile wrote: »
    It is when such ignorance of correct grammar is blatantly obvious that the blame should be directed towards educators.

    I think it's social responsibility as in
    we are responsible
    not just the educators


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    "who" and "whom"

    I think grammerians just want a complete matrix of pronouns
    Each changing in form depending on case

    OBJECT | SUBJECT
    she
    her
    he
    him
    they
    them
    we
    us
    you
    you (guess I was wrong)
    who
    whom


    That is the idea, though you inadvertently swapped the headings here. To go back to the original example, 'whom' is the objective case version.

    The claims by some that this stuff has ceased to exist just because they don't have the first clue about it is the height of arrogance. Pgibson mixing up dialect words like 'thou' with 'whom' just illustrates that point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    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.

    .

    "that has merit" the marshal thought.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Matt Holck wrote: »
    I think it's social responsibility as in
    we are responsible
    not just the educators

    The Irish constitution, I believe, dictates that parents are the primary educators, before a child is introduced to any kind of state education. It has also been argued that life is a learning process. Thus, an individual's learning is not limited to what they are exposed to by teachers. By this reasoning we all are both teachers and learners, and throughout our existence we continue to attain and empart skills and knowledge.

    Basically, I agree with your point :)
    Powerhouse wrote: »
    That is the idea, though you inadvertently swapped the headings here. To go back to the original example, 'whom' is the objective case version.

    The claims by some that this stuff has ceased to exist just because they don't have the first clue about it is the height of arrogance.

    I also agree with this point. At the risk of repeating an earlier point, I still say that just because ammendments have been made to how English is spoken in certain dialects (North American being the most notable here), the same conventions of written language remain(apart from obvious spelling differences such as s/z, ou/o, etc). What has changed in education is the level of priority given to teaching certain conventions as opposed to others.
    The current objective is to enable each child to communicate with those around them, regardless of their family background, creed, race or nationality. If the writing assignment of a 7 year old child is phonetically correct then his/her writing can be understood by the teacher. In this respect it can be said that most are educated successfully. Once this stage has been achieved the more precise details of the English language become the priority. However, as so many subjects must be allocated minimum time-allowances in the curriculum, those who need extra help in acquiring the command of said details may lose out.
    The blame for this situation may be laid at the feet of qualified teachers, at parents or at society as a whole. However, as Powerhouse put it, "this stuff" has not ceased to exist. Certain "rules" are now perceived by the majority as guidelines, which are followed at the writer's discretion rather than being enforced.
    The lack of an official body to enforce the rules is irrelevent. The Irish language (Gaeilge) was standardised in the last century (an Caighdeán Oifigiúil) so that the written Irish word could be understood by all who spoke the language, while still recognising the existence of at least 3 spoken dialects (canúintí). This gives recognition to both forms of the language.
    What confuses me here is that people cannot accept the same thing with regards to English. It's fine to speak in a casual manner in the comfortable setting of a friendly conversation, but there are times when writing really should follow grammatical rules.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭SoCal90046


    Powerhouse wrote: »
    Can I make opne important point? You have written on numerous occasions here that there is no one recognised governing body on the English language. We know that, and I have never suggested there is. All I have suggested is that there is such a thing as formal standard English. Whether this comes about as a standard that has evolved by general agreement or by dint of a UN resolation is neither here nor there. What this formal standard English does have is many absolute rules.

    Your answering of my third point which invites you to point out why this is not an absolute rule makes my argument for me. If you could dismiss this as not an absolute rule in formal English accepted anywhere presumably you would but you can't.

    This is an absolute rule - call it a convention or whatever you like after that - which no authority would dispute. There are many of these as I have said. How you think there are none is beyond me.


    I think your argument may have drifted. There are generally accepted norms within a version of English, but there isn't an overall governing body for the language--I think we agree on that point.

    I don't really know what you mean by formal standard English. In scientific communication, for example, there are standards. For example, in the realm of chemistry, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has a style guide to which authors must adhere if they want to be published in a society journal. However, other international journals have their style guides; and style guides exist for disciplines other than chemistry. There isn't a wide variation in the usage of English in international publications, but there are some small differences from region to region. So while there are styles that collectively could be referred to as formal scientific English, there are even nuances within this set. I am using scientific writing as one example. Other publications (Wall Street Journal, The Economist, US News and World Report and so on) have their own guides.

    Your answering of my third point which invites you to point out why this is not an absolute rule makes my argument for me. If you could dismiss this as not an absolute rule in formal English accepted anywhere presumably you would but you can't.

    You're providing an example of specious reasoning here! If you're looking for a group of people that constantly uses the pronoun "I" as the object of a verb or preposition and the pronoun "me" as the subject of a verb, look no further than Ireland. Most people in Ireland would not have a problem with the following exchange:

    - "Who's there?"
    - "Me."

    In this exchange "me" is either the implied subject of a verb, or the object of a verb. In fact, it's functioning as the object of a verb that never takes an object! A grammatically correct response would be "I," "I am" or "It is I." Each sounds awkward, but each is correct.

    Here's another one.

    - "So, I'll just ask you and you alone?"
    - "No, ask Frank or I."

    This syntax is very common where the pronoun "I" is functioning as the object of a verb--it's not grammatically correct, but it is widely accepted. You'll also hear things like "give it to Frank or I," where the pronoun "I" is incorrectly used as the object of a preposition. It's a syntax that is widely used and understood, but that in formal English would be deemed as ungrammatical. The grammatically correct response would be "No, ask Frank or me," or, in the second example, "give it to Frank or me." Each might sound awkward (or even wrong) to some people, but each is grammatically correct.

    I thought you were joking about the use of the personal pronoun, since it's so widely abused!

    Finally, in the last paragraph, you're misrepresenting what I wrote, while also providing at least one common grammatical error for good measure. ;) I conveyed that there is no universal governing body for the English language: that doesn't imply a free for all. Conventions exist within regions and even between or among regions. I didn't suggest that all conventions are unique to a single region and not found elsewhere. You misinterpreted what I wrote and drew an erroneous conclusion from your misreading.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    SoCal90046 wrote: »
    I think your argument may have drifted. There are generally accepted norms within a version of English, but there isn't an overall governing body for the language--I think we agree on that point.

    I don't really know what you mean by formal standard English. In scientific communication, for example, there are standards. For example, in the realm of chemistry, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has a style guide to which authors must adhere if they want to be published in a society journal. However, other international journals have their style guides; and style guides exist for disciplines other than chemistry. There isn't a wide variation in the usage of English in international publications, but there are some small differences from region to region. So while there are styles that collectively could be referred to as formal scientific English, there are even nuances within this set. I am using scientific writing as one example. Other publications (Wall Street Journal, The Economist, US News and World Report and so on) have their own guides.

    Your answering of my third point which invites you to point out why this is not an absolute rule makes my argument for me. If you could dismiss this as not an absolute rule in formal English accepted anywhere presumably you would but you can't.

    You're providing an example of specious reasoning here! If you're looking for a group of people that constantly uses the pronoun "I" as the object of a verb or preposition and the pronoun "me" as the subject of a verb, look no further than Ireland. Most people in Ireland would not have a problem with the following exchange:

    - "Who's there?"
    - "Me."

    In this exchange "me" is either the implied subject of a verb, or the object of a verb. In fact, it's functioning as the object of a verb that never takes an object! A grammatically correct response would be "I," "I am" or "It is I." Each sounds awkward, but each is correct.

    Here's another one.

    - "So, I'll just ask you and you alone?"
    - "No, ask Frank or I."

    This syntax is very common where the pronoun "I" is functioning as the object of a verb--it's not grammatically correct, but it is widely accepted. You'll also hear things like "give it to Frank or I," where the pronoun "I" is incorrectly used as the object of a preposition. It's a syntax that is widely used and understood, but that in formal English would be deemed as ungrammatical. The grammatically correct response would be "No, ask Frank or me," or, in the second example, "give it to Frank or me." Each might sound awkward (or even wrong) to some people, but each is grammatically correct.

    I thought you were joking about the use of the personal pronoun, since it's so widely abused!

    Finally, in the last paragraph, you're misrepresenting what I wrote, while also providing at least one common grammatical error for good measure. ;) I conveyed that there is no universal governing body for the English language: that doesn't imply a free for all. Conventions exist within regions and even between or among regions. I didn't suggest that all conventions are unique to a single region and not found elsewhere. You misinterpreted what I wrote and drew an erroneous conclusion from your misreading.


    As another poster wrote about someone else, you are confusing spoken with written English, and writing styles with grammar. Newspapers and journals have style guides to ensure consistency of presentation. None of them would ever suggest that such guides are academically authoritative. They simply suit their purposes.

    The "specious reasoning" you refer to is not there at all. I never said that people don't come up with all manner of strange things in spoken English. What I essentially asked you to do was point out a recognised authority that would say it was okay in formal English to use "I" in the objective case and "me" in the nominative. (You are the one saying there are no absolute rules in formal English)

    You claim to have 40 grammar books, yet the best you can do to answer this is conjure up an imaginary informal conversation?! And you accuse me of specious reasoning.:confused:

    Then again if you admit you don't know what formal standard English is then what's the point in discussing the matter? Though I admire your barefaced double-standard in saying that I made a grammatical error (and a sure sign you are struggling too when the central issue is ditched for an ad hominen dig!) and in your third post on this thread claiming that text-speak is really a series of poor spelling, while at the same time suggesting that there really are no rules.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,130 ✭✭✭Rosita


    SoCal90046 wrote: »

    while also providing at least one common grammatical error for good measure. ;)


    The words were taken out of my mouth on this one. How do you spot a grammatical error if there is no standard by which to judge?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Powerhouse wrote: »

    Then again if you admit you don't know what formal standard English is then what's the point in discussing the matter? Though I admire your barefaced double-standard in saying that I made a grammatical error (and a sure sign you are struggling too when the central issue is ditched for an ad hominen dig!) and in your third post on this thread claiming that text-speak is really a series of poor spelling, while at the same time suggesting that there really are no rules.


    What's your definition of formal standard English so?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,428 ✭✭✭Powerhouse


    What's your definition of formal standard English so?


    It's not for me to define such things. There are plenty of authoritative sources on the English language out there you can check out if you are interested.


Advertisement