Question about spelling and grammar in Ireland

brianthebard

Powerhouse wrote: »

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.

Lolz how clever of you. Unfortunately, if there are plenty of authoritative sources then that means you have been fibbing.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Lolz how clever of you. Unfortunately, if there are plenty of authoritative sources then that means you have been fibbing.

I find it odd that you think that only one author or grammar book or academic source can offer a definition of standard English. You seem to be confusing definitions of standard English with the actual thing itself.

I suppose I should be flattered than you thought I was the one authoritative source. "Lolz" indeed.

brianthebard

Eh no. But if you won't even name a book or author why should we believe your silly argument about formal standard english? If there is a standard, it follows that there is a standard book, from which others take their cues.

The Raven.

SoCal90046 wrote: »

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 wouldn’t agree that this is ‘widely accepted’ although it has gained currency in recent times due to a correction of the previous misuse of ‘me’ as subject:

‘Me and Frank are cousins.’
Correction: ‘Frank and I are cousins.’
Subsequent misinterpretation of correction: ‘The teacher told Frank and I to speak correctly.’

I have to say that I find this particularly irritating.

Powerhouse

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh no. But if you won't even name a book or author why should we believe your silly argument about formal standard english? If there is a standard, it follows that there is a standard book, from which others take their cues.

First of all, I couldn't care less whether you believe my "silly argument" or not! You strike me as a professional internet troll
with nothing to offer any discussion except to try to derail people with one-liners and glory in the anonymity of it all before you move to the next target "lolling" all the way. So please disabuse yourself of any notion that I have a desire to make you believe anything. I just give a few opinions. If people accept them fine, if not so what? If you are trying to get a rise out of me you are wasting your time.

But to give your reply more respect than it deserves - you didn't ask me to name and author or book. You asked me to define standard English.

You are now asking a different question. If you want a standard book from which all other take their cues then Lowth's Grammar is your answer. That is the basis for standard formal English grammar.

But I already mentioned that book in the discussion but you clearly weren't paying attention.

SoCal90046

Powerhouse wrote: »

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.

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 are you talking about? People will write what they speak!

You're allowing the discussion to drift once again. What does "academically authoritative" have to do with the issue? Nothing. Style guides dictate rules for punctuation and syntax.

With regard to the statement in the second paragraph of the quote above, you didn't ask point out a recognized authority that allows abuse of the personal pronoun. Here's what you asked.

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.

I gave you a group that uses I for me and me for I and that would argue it's correct.

More generally, the specific request you made adds nothing to the discussion. The reasoning you gave is specious because even if you had clearly expressed that you wanted a quote from some scholar or a citation in a grammar tome, and none was forthcoming, it doesn't support a notion of an absolute authority for the language.

I have no idea how the comment on grammar books is relevant.

And the final paragraph shows that you haven't really followed the discussion.

• There isn't a global, absolute standard for English, its spelling or its grammar;
• You made a grammatical error based on the usage of the word "none" in British English; the comment not an ad hominem attack; it's a statement of fact: just as the pronouns "me" and "I" are often used incorrectly, so too is the word "none."

Based on your final comment, I am drawn to the conclusion that you're simply not following the discussion. I have never said that there are no rules; there are. There is no absolute authority. The errors that I noted are spelling errors and not "text speak."

SoCal90046

Rosita wrote: »

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?

From my perspective there are standards, but there is no single authority.

Insect Overlord

Request for this thread to be moved to:
a) Linguistics & Etymology or
b) English

I fail to see how the debate is relevent to creative writing any more. It dwells now in the realms of pedantry.

Rosita

SoCal90046 wrote: »

From my perspective there are standards, but there is no single authority.

That is the case from everyone's perspective. You are the only one that keeps mentioning a single authority.

Powerhouse said that there are many "absolute" rules of grammar which are accepted by all acknowleged authorities as correct. That is unquestionably the case. There is but a small percentage that are really in dispute or regarded as matters of personal choice.

I would challenge you to name an etablished grammar authority (preferably some of the Oxford and Cambridge tomes as they are easily accessed) which would deem as acceptable the swapping of the personal pronouns irrespective of object and subject as you have outlined in your example. What you gave was a few fabricated conversations which you say would be accpeted by some undefined and unidentified group. But that was not my understanding of what you originally claimed. Of course, the spoken language will vary but if that's all you are capable of showing you seem to be missing the point which is that in formal English this does not happen. Unless of course you can cite a relevant authority which says it is acceptable.

You keep mentioning syntax and punctuation but that is a red herring as they are largely a matter of personal or house style not rule. Standard English comprises grammar, vocabulary, spelling and to some degree pronunciation.

Here is a rudimentary definition of formal English which might help some people including yourself understand.

"It is a version of the language that is used by educated English speakers and learners around the world. It takes similar forms regardless of the local spoken dialect, and is the version used in the teaching of grammar and vocabulary and most usually employed in broadcasting. In spoken English, there are a vast number of differences between dialects, accents, and varieties of slang. In contrast, local variations in the formal written version of the language are more limited."

SoCal90046

Rosita wrote: »

That is the case from everyone's perspective. You are the only one that keeps mentioning a single authority.

Powerhouse said that there are many "absolute" rules of grammar which are accepted by all acknowleged authorities as correct. That is unquestionably the case. There is but a small percentage that are really in dispute or regarded as matters of personal choice.

I would challenge you to name an etablished grammar authority (preferably some of the Oxford and Cambridge tomes as they are easily accessed) which would deem as acceptable the swapping of the personal pronouns irrespective of object and subject as you have outlined in your example. What you gave was a few fabricated conversations which you say would be accpeted by some undefined and unidentified group. But that was not my understanding of what you originally claimed. Of course, the spoken language will vary but if that's all you are capable of showing you seem to be missing the point which is that in formal English this does not happen. Unless of course you can cite a relevant authority which says it is acceptable.

You keep mentioning syntax and punctuation but that is a red herring as they are largely a matter of personal or house style not rule. Standard English comprises grammar, vocabulary, spelling and to some degree pronunciation.

Here is a rudimentary definition of formal English which might help some people including yourself understand.

"It is a version of the language that is used by educated English speakers and learners around the world. It takes similar forms regardless of the local spoken dialect, and is the version used in the teaching of grammar and vocabulary and most usually employed in broadcasting. In spoken English, there are a vast number of differences between dialects, accents, and varieties of slang. In contrast, local variations in the formal written version of the language are more limited."

In fairness, there is a clear inference from some posts that have discussed some authoritative body for the English language.

My problem is with the term "acknowledged authorities" and related terms, because I don't know what that term means. I haven't argued that versions of English as spoken or written are completely dissimilar. I object to the term "absolute" as I think it's not accurate. Rules are generally accepted within groups and, as I have said before, this doesn't exclude the fact that syntax can be similar or even identical between or among groups.

Thanks for the challenge, but it's not relevant to the points that I am making. I answered the question asked; if the author wasn't clear and now needs to restate want was meant, that's fine, but I addressed the issue that was raised. The example that I cited is relevant for body written and spoken English; I cited spoken as an example. Finding an "authoritative body" for the question posed isn't relevant as it wasn't requested.

Syntax and punctuation, just like grammar and spelling, are defined in all texts on grammar that I have read. They're both germane and relevant.

The definition you provided is interesting; in my experience, I don't believe it to be accurate. If you read newspapers or listen to broadcasts from different parts of the world, you'll discover while there might be a standard British, American or Indian English, as examples, there are differences among these versions of the language.

Sarky

An Fhile wrote: »

Request for this thread to be moved to:
a) Linguistics & Etymology or
b) English

I fail to see how the debate is relevent to creative writing any more. It dwells now in the realms of pedantry.

I agree. Thread moved to the English forum. Have fun.

Pgibson

SoCal90046 wrote: »

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 should have used it twice.

Surely that should read "one learns" and "one".

Or else "we learn" and "we".

.

SoCal90046

Pgibson wrote: »

You should have used it twice.

Surely that should read "one learns" and "one".

Or else "we learn" and "we".

.

In the sentence you cited, the pronoun "we" refers to how we perceive written English; the pronoun "one" refers to how people who read Chinese interpret the written language. If we all could read Chinese, the sentence would have reflected that fact.

pickarooney

When such widely-referenced sources as dictionary.com define 'infer' as a synonym of 'imply', 'presently' as 'now' and 'momentarily' as 'presently', is it just to blame poor schooling for adults using words in what, to all intents and purposes, are the correct manner?

SoCal90046

pickarooney wrote: »

When such widely-referenced sources as dictionary.com define 'infer' as a synonym of 'imply', 'presently' as 'now' and 'momentarily' as 'presently', is it just to blame poor schooling for adults using words in what, to all intents and purposes, are the correct manner?

In any text on grammar that I have read, even style guides for that matter, a distinction is drawn between the meaning of the verbs imply and infer. In most cases when they're interchanged, it doesn't lead to ambiguity. Distinctions are made between presently/now and momentarily/presently. In most cases for these two pairs of words, though not all, substituting one word for another doesn't lead to ambiguity.

On dictionary.com, you'll find a usage note that discusses the distinction between the verbs imply and infer. You'll also find a usage note for the words presently and momentarily. If people use this on-line resource correctly, it is a useful tool.

Powerhouse

Here’s a definition of Standard English from David Crystal. (If you know what you are talking about his name will be readily familiar, if you need to be told who he is then by definition you have no idea what you are on about, so I won’t qualify his expertise with an introduction.)

Everyone who learns English in an educational setting end up with roughly the same system of sounds, spellings, words and grammar. That system is called ‘Standard English’. Its standardness is maintained by a tradition of writing in print, overseen by editors, copy-editors, and proof-readers of the world’s publishing houses, and formalised by English-teaching syllabuses, textbooks, and examination boards everywhere. Whether you learn English in Kolkata, Athens, Singapore or Rio de Janeiro, you will emerge from your course with, broadly speaking, a command of the same ‘thing’.

Just one final point: I never ever said, despite constant misrepresentation by socal90046, that there is an absolute standard. All I said was that there are many absolute (“unqualified and undiminished” – OED) rules in English grammar which are accepted by all authorities as required in formal standard English.

Anyway, that’s my last post on the matter. The inevitable objections to the definition should be directed towards Prof Crystal!

pickarooney

SoCal90046 wrote: »

If people use this on-line resource correctly, it is a useful tool.

A dictionary is a descriptive volume, playing catch-up with ever-evolving human speech, not a prescriptive tome governing how language will behave. For this reason words are continually added to dictionaries based on use and not from dictionaries into common speech.

maryxyz

Too much pedantic pompous rant in this discussion.

SoCal is correct - it's clear that the standard of English both written and spoken in Ireland has seriously disimproved.

Strangely, I've noted for some time that Americans are the only people now keeping up standards in English grammar & spelling !

Maryxyz

SoCal90046

Powerhouse wrote: »

Here’s a definition of Standard English from David Crystal. (If you know what you are talking about his name will be readily familiar, if you need to be told who he is then by definition you have no idea what you are on about, so I won’t qualify his expertise with an introduction.)

Everyone who learns English in an educational setting end up with roughly the same system of sounds, spellings, words and grammar. That system is called ‘Standard English’. Its standardness is maintained by a tradition of writing in print, overseen by editors, copy-editors, and proof-readers of the world’s publishing houses, and formalised by English-teaching syllabuses, textbooks, and examination boards everywhere. Whether you learn English in Kolkata, Athens, Singapore or Rio de Janeiro, you will emerge from your course with, broadly speaking, a command of the same ‘thing’.

Just one final point: I never ever said, despite constant misrepresentation by socal90046, that there is an absolute standard. All I said was that there are many absolute (“unqualified and undiminished” – OED) rules in English grammar which are accepted by all authorities as required in formal standard English.

Anyway, that’s my last post on the matter. The inevitable objections to the definition should be directed towards Prof Crystal!

It's great you found a definition for standard English, the errors in grammar aside, I find this definition to be of little value. It's just not accurate. There are differences, sometimes major differences, in the sounds, spellings, words and grammar from region to region.

I think we're on agreement that there's not an absolute standard or authority. I took exception to your use of the word "absolute." While we may be in agreement, you continue to address this mythical issue of "standard English," as in the quote above, where it's easy to infer that you're suggesting some reference standard for the language.

SoCal90046

pickarooney wrote: »

A dictionary is a descriptive volume, playing catch-up with ever-evolving human speech, not a prescriptive tome governing how language will behave. For this reason words are continually added to dictionaries based on use and not from dictionaries into common speech.

You're raising a separate and distinct issue, which has little relevance to my comment.

The issue I addressed was specific to dictionary.com and the claim in your post that this site helps create ambiguity in the meaning of words. In the examples you cited, it doesn't. There's a clear usage guide provided for each word.

Any modern dictionary plays two roles: descriptive and prescriptive.

Pgibson

SoCal90046 wrote: »

In the sentence you cited, the pronoun "we" refers to how we perceive written English; the pronoun "one" refers to how people who read Chinese interpret the written language. If we all could read Chinese, the sentence would have reflected that fact.

I think I better beat a hasty retreat out of this thread and return to my beloved Astronomy and Mathematics and Physics.

Much easier to understand !

.

SoCal90046

Pgibson wrote: »

I think I better beat a hasty retreat out of this thread and return to my beloved Astronomy and Mathematics and Physics.

Much easier to understand !

.

Those sound like interesting places too.

Powerhouse

SoCal90046 wrote: »

It's great you found a definition for standard English, the errors in grammar aside, I find this definition to be of little value. It's just not accurate.

I couldn't care less whether it is of value to you or not. That's not the reason I put it up there. I put it up as I have essentially been called a liar.

I provided it merely to show that a highly eminent scholar acknowledges its existence. Now obviously his view mightn't carry the same weight as that of an anonymous internet contributor whose bona fides are (unlike his opinions unfortunately) kept to himself!

But the only reason I replied is to say that all views in that definition including grammatical errors should be directed to Prof Crystal. Indeed he might highlight some of your own recurring blunders in one of his books!

SoCal90046

Powerhouse wrote: »

I couldn't care less whether it is of value to you or not. That's not the reason I put it up there. I put it up as I have essentially been called a liar.

I provided it merely to show that a highly eminent scholar acknowledges its existence. Now obviously his view mightn't carry the same weight as that of an anonymous internet contributor whose bona fides are (unlike his opinions unfortunately) kept to himself!

But the only reason I replied is to say that all views in that definition including grammatical errors should be directed to Prof Crystal. Indeed he might highlight some of your own recurring blunders in one of his books!

You're being gratuitously defensive. We have a difference of opinion; that's all. I have stated my opinion and given support for the claim. To date, I don't think you've offered a solid argument for your claim.

What you cited provides weak support for the claim you made. It doesn't really support your thesis of some sort of standard English.

I direct the errors in the post at you; you're the person who provided this quote. My guess is that the quote was incorrectly transcribed--at least I hope that was the problem.

By the way, you earlier made an erroneous claim of an ad hominem attack; you actually provided a better example in your second paragraph.

If you're going to make an claim, support it with a sold argument and stop whining!

Rosita

SoCal90046 wrote: »

You're being gratuitously defensive. We have a difference of opinion; that's all. I have stated my opinion and given support for the claim. To date, I don't think you've offered a solid argument for your claim.

What you cited provides weak support for the claim you made. It doesn't really support your thesis of some sort of standard English.

I direct the errors in the post at you; you're the person who provided this quote. My guess is that the quote was incorrectly transcribed--at least I hope that was the problem.

By the way, you earlier made an erroneous claim of an ad hominem attack; you actually provided a better example in your second paragraph.

If you're going to make an claim, support it with a sold argument and stop whining!

Just curious: if you are calling the other poster's claims of an ad hominem attack "erroneous" why did you claim he/she had made a grammatical error when you now guess it was incorrectly transcribed? Why did you not implicitly acknowledge this by not commenting? Your failure to just ignore a tarnscription error when you knew it was one suggests that you were happy to get a gratuitous kick in when the chance was there.

I think Powerhouse has made solid arguments, and has cited a highly reputable source for the standard English argument. It is true that we are all anonymous contributors here and nobody's opinion carries particular weight. In that context, I think the referencing of David Crystal on the matter of standard English ups the ante significantly and has put the ball firmly in your court.

You really need to do better in the credibility stakes that just dismissing the definition cited without any contradictary evidence from a similarly reputable source.

SoCal90046

Rosita wrote: »

Just curious: if you are calling the other poster's claims of an ad hominem attack "erroneous" why did you claim he/she had made a grammatical error when you now guess it was incorrectly transcribed? Why did you not implicitly acknowledge this by not commenting? Your failure to just ignore a tarnscription error when you knew it was one suggests that you were happy to get a gratuitous kick in when the chance was there.

Your analysis is flawed. For one thing, the claim of a transcription error is a supposition on my part, I don't know if one actually occurred. So stating that I knew there was a transcription error is drawing an incorrect conclusion from what I wrote.

Regarding the erroneous ad hominem argument, that episode happened in post 88. I simply mentioned, in the context of the thread, a common error in using the singular pronoun none with the wrong form of the verb. It wasn't an ad hominem attack. The comment in post 87 has nothing to do with the discussion of a possible transcription error in post 107.

Rosita wrote: »

I think Powerhouse has made solid arguments, and has cited a highly reputable source for the standard English argument. It is true that we are all anonymous contributors here and nobody's opinion carries particular weight. In that context, I think the referencing of David Crystal on the matter of standard English ups the ante significantly and has put the ball firmly in your court.

You really need to do better in the credibility stakes that just dismissing the definition cited without any contradictary evidence from a similarly reputable source.

We disagree on the assessment of the quality of argument. The quote attributed to David Crystal doesn't support that argument that a standard version of English exists. As I pointed out there are differences in the sounds, spelling, words and grammar. In fact, if you start reading the writings of David Crystal, you'll realize that he spends quite a lot of time looking at the differences between and among different groups of English speakers.

FlutterinBantam

Lot of pompous posting and pedantic argument here.

Answer to the OP's question.

YES YES Abysmal is what I would say, one has only to browse around Boards.ie to see the so called self appointed intelligentsia make the most basic of spelling and grammar errors.


Dumbing down ..dumbing down:mad:

Matt Holck

if a verb is within a dependent clause,
does it take the passive case so it is not confused with the verb in the main clause

And I demand
You put my heart back in my hand
And wipe it clean
From the mess you (have?) made of me

http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=3530822107858622372

elshambo

An Fhile wrote: »

Speaking as a student teacher:
Spelling and grammar are definitely emphasised in most schools, but there's always going to be some schools that prioritise other aspects of education. For some children, attaining a very basic level of literacy may be considered a great achievement, especially in areas certified as "disadvantaged". In these cases, the learning needs of the child in terms of emotional and cognitive skills may receive more attention than the technical aspects of other subjects.

Well is this one of the reasons kids from disadvantaged areas stay disadvantaged more often than not:eek:
All kids from poor areas get treated like they are idiots or worse, taught as if they are idiots, taught by idiot teachers who would never be let near a school in a "decent area" and take it out on the kids instead of looking at themselves, are told they are idiots and them get abuse off the very same people who run the system when they dont achive anything in adult life

I wonder why so many people want to be teachers at the moment (including 4 of my cousins), at a time when teachers are really getting it bad from all sides, cant all be for "the right reasons"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4slqDJaU6VU

brianthebard wrote: »

Hmm, even so the problem starts at primary level so its clear that they aren't doing enough there.

Primary school as i remember it; read the sentence to yourself and when you need a breath thats where you put your comma.

SoCal90046 wrote: »

What I have noted that the writing here is often much more creative than on some boards in the US, so I concluded that in the educational system there must be more of an emphasis on substance rather than on style.

I dont think that is anything to do with the education system to be honest, is more of a: we write the way we speak sort of thing, then again might actually be due to the system after all, but for the wrong reasons;)

shiv wrote: »

I just never understood why Ireland is so anti-apostrophe...

Anti what now?

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

"I done" and "I seen" seem to be popular" :eek:
.......and that old reliable in Ireland - the misuse of the word "rob" for "steal".
e.g. "My car was robbed".
:rolleyes:

Is some of that not just taking a language and making it our own?

Ive been meaning to brush up on my grammer for some time, mostly for myself but also due to people have been at me for years that I should write for a living, including quite a few writers, even been offered places on creative writing courses (the ones people have to do jump thru hoops to get on) for cost sometimes free. However after reading this thread I think I will leave it to the sub-editors:D

Many days without sleep have even more illetarate than usual
Im sure there are a few of these ',' and possibly one or two of these ';' missing from above:(