Is grammar/spelling going down the drain?

TheShizz

AerynSun wrote: »

For shizzle my nizzle, if there was one extremist, then it should have read:
"Nut's plot: Prince Harry murder"
But if there were two or more extremists, then it should have read:
"Nuts plot Prince Harry murder"

But it's The Sun... so...

Ah I'm with you, as in "this is one nut's plot to kill Prince Harry". It was probably - and hopefully - just one of them so.

dxhound2005

A deranged man breaks free from a mental institution and rapes a woman in the laundry before running for it.

The headline?

"Nut Screws Washer and Bolts".


Sorry.

Gordon

TheShizz wrote: »

Am I right in saying that there was a criminal error on the front page of The Sun newspaper the other day?

The story was about some Irish Islamic extremist who had plotted to kill Prince Harry, but the headline was something like; "Nut's plot Prince Harry murder" or something of that nature. No need for the apostrophe?

Was it the one in the star?

Looks fine to me. The grammar.

Femme_Fatale

Yeh it was referring to one nut and his plot to do yadda yadda.

AerynSun

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh it was referring to one nut and his plot to do yadda yadda.

Are you entirely and convincingly certain that it's 'yadda yadda', as apposed to 'yadda-yadda'?

superglue

kneemos wrote: »

Standards are good but grammar Nazi types can be very pedantic and anal,pisses people off rightly.

Ya Dey Do B Anal Anal So Dey Do!!1!

Frank Lee Midere

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Spelling has never been better, even 15 years ago only a certain percentage of the population wrote words down daily; students, doctors, journalists and that, but now everyone writes sh1t online or whatever.

Sure. Nobody wrote anything 15 years ago. Except on stone tablets.

wil

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A deranged man breaks ...etc
Sorry.

A dearranged man walks in to a bra..

sorryless

shopaholic01

superglue wrote: »

Ya Dey Do B Anal Anal So Dey Do!!1!

Does be.

Frank Lee Midere

The Sun's article was correct: the Irish nut had a plan to attack the queen. It was his plan. So the possessive apostrophe was correct.

As for their and there, it's often caused by autocorrect; however there are people who get it wrong in both cases all the time. It's so close, they know they can't use there ( or their) all the time, and yet so far.

Frank Lee Midere

What bugs me is "I seen". Very Dublin.

Femme_Fatale

wil wrote: »

A dearranged man walks in to a bra..

sorryless

Dyslexics of the world... untie!

SimonQuinlank

I'm not bothered about spelling/punctuation mistakes on forums or social media as long as someone has at least attempted to use actual words, and not lazily resorted to using 'txt' speak.

If I read an article or saw an advert with spelling/punctuation mistakes I'd definitely think slightly less of the author or company though.No excuse for not proof-reading in those instances.

Baron Kurtz

Can I get two chip der, Boss!?

wil

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Dyslexics of the world... untie!

A graffiti favrite, ware it all started b4 dis txting mallarky.

Wherez Killroy now?

Baron Kurtz

Me Ma. Me Da.

Is this knowingly penned incorrectly in an essay, for example, or is it just some blind loyal affectation that must be adhered to in certain parts of Dublin? I'll never ask, so I'll probably never know.

BorneTobyWilde

I tink its not going down the drain? your just over reactking, over their on your hi horse clamying its is .

JohnMearsheimer

Spelling and grammar doesn't really bother me for the most part as long as I can figure out what is being said. I'm surprised at the number of times I have seen a lot spelled as alot though.

Chris The Hacker

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

. I think some rules seem silly and irrelevant too - e.g. starting a sentence with "And" or "Also" looks fine IMO.

Nah, that's bollocks. And is a conjunction, conjunctions are used to join words together. If you use "and" at the start of a sentence, then the word loses its purpose. If a word loses its purpose, then it might as well not exist.

Femme_Fatale

Chris The Hacker wrote: »

Nah, that's bollocks.

Nah, it's not bollocks - it's a personal opinion: I think starting a sentence with "And" or "Also" looks fine.

And is a conjunction

You should have put quote-marks around "And". Without them it looks like you're starting the sentence with "And".

conjunctions are used to join words together. If you use "and" at the start of a sentence, then the word loses its purpose. If a word loses its purpose, then it might as well not exist.

Bit hysterical.

force eleven

Their is nothing we can do and I here that it is a loosing battle. I am hopefull however that they're will be a change in the sylabus what will aid us in our fight against grammar mistakes.

patmac

I think the standard of English in England is terrible, if you listen to Eastenders and all those Essex and holiday programmes where people get drunk and fall over, it's like there from another planet innit.

Omackeral

I cannot fathom why people feel the need to put an apostrophe after any plural. My local supermarket has a printed sign which reads "No Trolley's at this till. 'Trollie's' would have been bad enough but using the singular? Ugh!! It melts my brain. Some manager allowed that to be displayed.

Another misuse of apostrophe example was a County Council bin which read "Keep You're Town Tidy". That's inexcusable at that level.

I got in trouble earlier for pulling someone up on it (I was being a smartarse, to be fair) but it does seem like you're almost looked down at for using proper grammar and then also called a Nazi!

biko

Languages evolve all the time and that's fine. Soon U will be acceptable for YOU which will be ok with me.
Many people will spell words the way they sound in conversation - there, they're, their or alot, abit.
There's also pronunciation problems that affect the spelling. People spell thought as taught because that's how they pronounce it.

It's the concious decision to dumb it down that gets me, when people that otherwise can write properly decide to text speak.
A friend uses text speak all the time which wrecks my brain, and she's is an English teacher!

riaganach

This thread is helping my blood pressure.

I've been actively and avidly reading boards.ie (only) for the past year.

For a while I coulldn't understand the intolerance of grammar nazis. It dawned on me that not allowing grammar nazis to derail threads makes the forum more democratic.

The rules are: attack the post but not the poster or the grammar.

I now no longer fidget with the trigger when I see spelling and grammar mistakes.

Reading Boards.ie is therapy for grammar nazis.

That said, I do think grammar and spelling counts in the real world. Too many CVs are discarded by employers because of simple stuff like spelling and grammar.

A lot of jobs are about experience and aptitude, but if you're a crap communicator then I don't want to work with you or employ you.

One other thing while I think about it: if you give a shít and want to improve your grammar and vocabulary, then the best way to do that is to read quality books and news.

The King of Moo

Chris The Hacker wrote: »

Nah, that's bollocks. And is a conjunction, conjunctions are used to join words together. If you use "and" at the start of a sentence, then the word loses its purpose. If a word loses its purpose, then it might as well not exist.

"First you have red, orange and blue. And to finish, there's green, yellow, indigo and violet."

There's nothing wrong with using "and" as a connecting word between two sentences, particularly like above, where a long list is split into two parts. It could have been one long sentence, with a comma before "and," but I like the longer pause the full stop provides.

It's like "but." Not so long ago, people derided the idea of using it in any way apart from acting as a conjunction between two contrasting clauses within one sentence. But now, it's perfectly acceptable to use it to connect a contrast between two sentences, like "however."

And what's the deal with airline food?

I have poor English: did well in my leaving despite that, I have no problem with the spelling or grammar Nazi's after all poor spelling and grammar does get on peoples nerves, however what I don't like is someone commenting on someone grammar or spelling as a way of winning an argument or of trying to silence someone because you don't agree with them, it is a form of bullying and it that has been clamped down on a bit by boards.

What is emerging now is using pedantry as way of trying to win an argument, if you don't agree with some one say so, its much easier.

LordSutch

English people replacing 'sitting' and 'standing' (with sat & stood) Its everywhere now, even on the BBC, it's all over the bloody TV and the radio.

When I was growing up it was always "I was sitting at the bus stop waiting for" . . .
Now Its "I was sat at the bus stop".

Same now applies to sitting.

When I was growing up it was always "I was standing outside the door when" . . .

Now its nearly always "I was stood outside the door when" . . .

I realise that language changes with the passage of time, but I also find it annoying when the basics of grammar that I learned as a child are now 'old hat' and to be replaced with non standard/street lingo/text grammar

born2bwild

riaganach wrote: »

Reading Boards.ie is therapy for grammar nazis.

I disagree: I've begun using boards less and less because of the posters' generally poor standard of spelling, punctuation and grammar; I'd never point it out to a poster because it's rude to do so but every time I read "your" instead of "you're" or would "of" done (or "would of went"), for example, I know I'm in the wrong place.

bnt

Just for fun, you can analyse your (or someone else's) writing using a website such as this one. It returns a readability score (higher is better) and a "grade level", which ought to be equivalent to your school Class. (e.g. US Grade 4 and Irish Class 4 are both for 9-10-year olds.)

I will refrain from further comment at this time.

sopretty

Think speed is more of a factor now. Whoever has the breaking news story will get the most hits, hence the most advertising revenue. A slow publication like a newspaper, should be properly edited. News is so up to the minute now that it's more a case of being the first to get the story out!

Savman

Your/You're is a grammatical crime against humanity.
Nearly as bad as "should of".

:mad:

Knight who says Meh

Is their any evidence too support this? There is none that I no off.

bnt

bnt wrote: »

Just for fun, you can analyse your (or someone else's) writing using a website such as this one. It returns a readability score (higher is better) and a "grade level", which ought to be equivalent to your school Class. (e.g. US Grade 4 and Irish Class 4 are both for 9-10-year olds.)

I will refrain from further comment at this time.

I tried that and got 36 and grade 10 from something I posted on boards

cml387

bnt wrote: »

Just for fun, you can analyse your (or someone else's) writing using a website such as this one. It returns a readability score (higher is better) and a "grade level", which ought to be equivalent to your school Class. (e.g. US Grade 4 and Irish Class 4 are both for 9-10-year olds.)

I will refrain from further comment at this time.

You scored 65

Eeden

Grammar Pedantry Syndrome:

https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120

I am in recovery. I used to be a grammar a­rsehole; not anymore.

I reckon there could be a healthy dollop of xenophobia going on with the hatred of some accents, ways of pronouncing certain words, etc. Not to mention a feeling of superiority.

sopretty

Gordon wrote: »

People have been complaining about spelling and grammar errors for decades, maybe even centuries. This is most likely because language is evolving, and the very fact that people _don't_ stick rigidly to the rules of current English/language allows our words to change through time, and our punctuation, and even our grammar. Language evolution is constant, you can tell this if you try to read a text from a couple of centuries ago.

Doesn't mean I don't like to stick to the rules and have tidy text, but a good rule of thumb is: you've got to know the rules in order to know which rules to break.

I would disagree. I think there has been a certain snobbery around language, accent, handwriting, as only a privileged minority were educated back in the day! It was a way to determine class. If you couldn't write, you were an uneducated fool.
Nowadays thankfully, we have managed to distinguish between a lack of education and a lack of intelligence. Down through the centuries, you were viewed as stupid if you had no education. I'm not sure that they could distinguish between the two.

Femme_Fatale

Eeden wrote: »

Grammar Pedantry Syndrome:

https://illinois.edu/blog/view/25/76120

I am in recovery. I used to be a grammar a­rsehole; not anymore.

I reckon there could be a healthy dollop of xenophobia going on with the hatred of some accents, ways of pronouncing certain words, etc. Not to mention a feeling of superiority.

Bit annoying though when people take that so far that they pretend it's ok for newspapers and the like to be littered with spelling/grammar/punctuation errors. As sneering as grammar nazis tbh. I'm not aiming that at you specifically as I don't know whether you do take it that far.

But it's kinda like the whole "I think militant atheists are as bad as militantly religious people" thing - well as long as you have found a way to feel superior to both.

Eeden

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Bit annoying though when people take that so far that they pretend it's ok for newspapers and the like to be littered with spelling/grammar/punctuation errors. As sneering as grammar nazis tbh. I'm not aiming that at you specifically as I don't know whether you do take it that far.

But it's kinda like the whole "I think militant atheists are as bad as militantly religious people" thing - well as long as you have found a way to feel superior to both.

I very much feel that newspapers, CVs, and other professional work should be proofread. Most definitely! One thing I still get annoyed about is incorrect language in radio news, for example. And if a CV comes in to me with spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. it's pretty much filed in the bin.

bnt

cml387 wrote: »

You scored 65

Wow, I never saw that coming!

riaganach

born2bwild wrote: »

I disagree: I've begun using boards less and less because of the posters' generally poor standard of spelling, punctuation and grammar; I'd never point it out to a poster because it's rude to do so but every time I read "your" instead of "you're" or would "of" done (or "would of went"), for example, I know I'm in the wrong place.

:rolleyes:

"I disapprove of what you say (when you don't put the apostrophe in the right place), but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

(Apologies to Voltaire.)

riaganach

bnt wrote: »

Just for fun, you can analyse your (or someone else's) writing using a website such as this one. It returns a readability score (higher is better) and a "grade level", which ought to be equivalent to your school Class. (e.g. US Grade 4 and Irish Class 4 are both for 9-10-year olds.)

I will refrain from further comment at this time.

I tried this:

The cat.

I got this:

Readable Score: 121 (The higher the score the easier the article is to read!)
Grade Level: -4

From now on all my sentences no verbs.

dxhound2005

Omackeral wrote: »

I cannot fathom why people feel the need to put an apostrophe after any plural. My local supermarket has a printed sign which reads "No Trolley's at this till. 'Trollie's' would have been bad enough but using the singular? Ugh!! It melts my brain. Some manager allowed that to be displayed.

Another misuse of apostrophe example was a County Council bin which read "Keep You're Town Tidy". That's inexcusable at that level.

I got in trouble earlier for pulling someone up on it (I was being a smartarse, to be fair) but it does seem like you're almost looked down at for using proper grammar and then also called a Nazi!

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

riaganach

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

Ah for the love of God tonight, I just dropped my phone trying to read that...

bnt

But you don't have to be a "grammar nazi" to be concerned about how things are going. I just made the mistake of reading some of a Garda Recruitment thread: don't Guards have to write reports, and give testimony in court? Then again, I don't get why so many people are fighting and agonizing over Garda jobs, so what do I know ..?

wil

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Time for me to wheel out the de rigueur Stephen Fry grammar nazi video. Just for fun.

Shortened it he could ave.

I was with him up to lang;)

BorneTobyWilde

Savman wrote: »

Your/You're is a grammatical crime against humanity.
Nearly as bad as "should of".

:mad:

I should of compared prices before I rushed into buying a new tv.

So this is wrong?

The King of Moo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I should of compared prices before I rushed into buying a new tv.

So this is wrong?

Yes.
"Should" is a modal verb (basically, one that modifies the meaning of another verb).
"to compare" is your main verb.

After a modal verb, when it refers to the present or future, you use the bare infinitive form of the main verb, which is "compare."
E.g. "You should compare prices before you rush into buying a TV."

When referring to the past (in most cases of using modal verbs) you use the past infinitive form of the main verb (have + past participle) after the modal.
In this case: "have compared."
E.g. "I should have compared prices before I rushed into buying a TV."

When using the past infinitive, some people write "of" instead of "have" because the spoken abbreviated form ("should've," "might've" etc.) makes "'ve" sound like "of."

BorneTobyWilde

You should of course have compared prices. Would be correct use ?
So you can use ''should of ''

Femme_Fatale

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

You should of course have compared prices. Would be correct use ?
So you can use ''should of ''

Yeh but that doesn't have the same meaning as "should have".

I think the only time "should of" is correct is the example you gave: "should of course".

Whereas "should have" goes in front of any past participle of a verb: "should have gone", "should have watched", "should have said", "should have seen" etc.