The Irish and 'Its' and 'It's'

LaFuton

tITs

s7ryf3925pivug

Who and whom is another one.
If you use who instead of whom, few people will notice, and fewer will care.
If you use whom instead of who, everyone will notice. Some will assume you're right and think you must be terribly well educated.

everlast75

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Is it wrong if I make the assumption that some of these things are a sign of someone being lazy?

Like, when a poster starts every single sentence with a lowercase letter? Some people are bad at spelling fair enough... but almost everyone knows that you start a sentence with a capital letter!

It's just laziness... what else could it be?

Of course they'll just say "why does it matter?"... and they're probably correct, it doesn't. I can still read what they're saying.

But I'm betting they are probably lazy in other areas of life too. Might be an unfair assumption, but that's where my mind automatically goes when I see it. :P

I think it could be deemed lazy to start a sentence with the word "like", instead of the words "for example"....

Always Tired

Where the Irish really struggle is with been and being. As a result of not pronouncing the ing in being they think they can just use the word been when writing instead, as in "This cup is been used by me."

I guess ofen it doesnt get caught because of the way it's pronounced here and because often statements used with either can be correct, only the tense changes, like "He's being bold." Vs "He's been bold."

listermint

MrAbyss wrote: »

I used to work for a pensions company and most of the clients were semi-literate at best. Again. All degrees.

The education system in Ireland is shocking. When I was growing up you had RTE and politicians claiming it was greatest in the world FFS lol.

Opening post claims not to be a Grammar Nazi.

Hangs on absolute minor grammar imperfections then claims the education system in Ireland is shocking.

Two things OP.

You absolutely are hell bent on grammar.

You've evidently not travelled properly.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

somefeen wrote: »

Then we can't accept your error here. :P

Tendency

Rodin wrote: »

Tenancy?

That’s obviously a typo, lads.

Montage of Feck

It's tits

SeaFields

"A man who will misuse an apostrophe is capable of anything"

Con Houlihan

Greyfox

MrAbyss wrote: »

I am not even close to being a grammar Nazi,

I worked with professionals - who had top degrees - who didn't know their 'it's' from their 'its'.

Hmmm your very close to been one.

Luca Nervous Bride wrote: »

there is a tenancy to simply accept the errors nowadays, rather than pull somebody up on it. Even try it here and you'll be carded for being a grammar Nazi - you can't win!

And I am very happy this is the way it is as once something isn't difficult to read it's very childish to pull someone up on it.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

Is it wrong if I make the assumption that some of these things are a sign of someone being lazy?

It's not laziness it's simply not caring and sometimes there right not to care

looksee

Xertz wrote: »

It seems we've a major issue with Only in Ireland threads that talk about universal issues that are far from unique to this country.

Most English speakers are no longer taught grammar in any kind of formal context and the result is repetition of all sorts of very basic mistakes.

The grocer's apostrophe is a pretty common error that occurs very regularly in all English speaking countries because a % of the population either was never taught or does not understand the grammar around 's and ---s' for possession, how it's used for contractions etc. A lot of people seem to just put in 's for all plurals, particularly on signage.

You also see things like quotation marks being used to emphasise things, when it makes them look like they're talking hypothetically. "Sale" now on!

There's even a Facebook group called the Redundant Proof Readers Society if you want to have a laugh at some of the signage people encounter.

It's as unique to Ireland as walking into a lamppost while tweeting on your smartphone.

That should surely be grocers' apostrophe since it was not a singular grocer that scattered apostrophes amongst his fruit and veg.

Church on Tuesday

KaneToad wrote: »

Why the inverted commas?

Just your run-of-the-mill Boards wind up artist.

There's loads.

biko

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Happens everywhere around the world.

It's not just an Irish thing, stop with the Irish bashing.

From USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39lHPHs8bV8

vriesmays

Without further adieu.

is_that_so

Clara Miniature Thunderbolt wrote: »

Who and whom is another one.
If you use who instead of whom, few people will notice, and fewer will care.
If you use whom instead of who, everyone will notice. Some will assume you're right and think you must be terribly well educated.

Whom really just remains in use after prepositions. It's too much work to decide if the object from is required.

Stateofyou

biko wrote: »

From USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39lHPHs8bV8

They don't say babby in the US, why do you say it's from there?

railer201

Zascar wrote: »

1000x this. I shiver every time I hear it, I don't know why but it really gets under my skin.

"I see this movie". No, it's "I saw this movie" or "I have seen this movie" - https://proofreading.ie/portfolio/using-did-and-done-correctly/
"I done it already". No, it's "I did it already" or "I have done it already" - https://proofreading.ie/portfolio/saw-or-seen/

My grammar is far from perfect but this one is so basic, it really 'Smacks of a poor education" as you say. However it just seems to be an accepted part of Irish vocabulary these days for so many.

It does, doesn't it notn't !

is_that_so

KiKi III wrote: »

I explained to a friend of mine the other day that “should of” is not a real phrase. I had to go into detail on how it’s a mishearing of “should’ve”.

He has a degree from trinity.

In its contracted form, phonetics do represent it as an approximation of should of like this /ˈʃʊd.əv/. No excuse not to know how to spell it properly. "Should/Could have went" is another increasingly popular form, once heard from an RTE correspondent on live TV.

Stateofyou

How do we feel about "amn't I?"

is_that_so

Stateofyou wrote: »

How do we feel about "amn't I?"

I like it - classic Hiberno English, but not as much as "Amn't I not after telling you".

LLMMLL

Stateofyou wrote: »

How do we feel about "amn't I?"

Another ridiculous thread from those with zero knowledge of actual linguistics.

Every native english speaker speaks grammatical English unless they have brain damage or get distracted mid sentence and forget how they started it.

is_that_so

LLMMLL wrote: »

Another ridiculous thread from those with zero knowledge of actual linguistics.

Every native english speaker speaks grammatical English unless they have brain damage or get distracted mid sentence and forget how they started it.

We await your "expertise" so, if you can be bothered! All this shows is that you have a snarky attitude and probably don't play well with others!

LLMMLL

is_that_so wrote: »

We await your "expertise" so if you can be bothered! All this shows is that you have a snarky attitude and probably don't play well with others!

I just gave my expertise. Every native English speaker is speaking grammatically. What do you need further elaboration on?

moonage

Stateofyou wrote: »

How do we feel about "amn't I?"

"Amn't I" makes more sense than "Aren't I".

Am I not correct? I am.

Are I not correct? I are. I is. I am.

is_that_so

LLMMLL wrote: »

I just gave my expertise. Every native English speaker is speaking grammatically. What do you need further elaboration on?

Well a bit more than I say so would be good. According to generally defined rules they are not and some lapse into what is considered non-standard grammar. For a self-proclaimed expert on linguistics you're not exactly pushing the boat out on developing any type of extended discourse, as is evident in how much repair is required.

LLMMLL

is_that_so wrote: »

Well a bit more than I say so would be good. According to generally defined rules they are not and some lapse into what is considered non-standard grammar. For a self-proclaimed expert on linguistics you're not exactly pushing the boat out on developing any type of extended discourse, as is evident in how much repair is required.

"Standard grammar" is made up and was only a part of linguistics pre 1950s. Modern linguists recognize (and value) the way native speakers ACTUALLY speak. And that varies by person, by region etc.

People do not "lapse" into "non-standard" grammar. That is pure nonsense. They consistently speak their own variety of English. There is absolutely ZERO linguistic reason to think of "I saw" as being more "correct" than "I seen".

martingriff

When people go to 3rd Level and study degrees, it is modules for the course. They do not study English and grammar. So just because you go to 3rd Level does not necessarily mean your grammar or spelling will be good.

Badly Drunk Boy

MrAbyss wrote: »

I am not even close to being a grammar Nazi, but there is a huge issue in this country with the apostrophe.

But why are you just blaming the Irish? It's rampant throughout the English-speaking world. Ireland isn't even mentioned in that article about the Apostrophe Protection Society's disbandment.

Stateofyou

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

But why are you just blaming the Irish? It's rampant throughout the English-speaking world. Ireland isn't even mentioned in that article about the Apostrophe Protection Society's disbandment.

I actually see it a bit differently. The question or subject is "The Irish and Its and It's" yet American's were dragged into it pretty quick (as per usual). When the focus is on Irish people and the use of them in Ireland. Presumably because the poster is Irish and we're on an Irish forum. It seems we can't accept our own faults or criticism very well without dragging in others in brilliant "whataboutism" fashion.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Stateofyou wrote: »

I actually see it a bit differently. The question or subject is "The Irish and Its and It's" yet American's were dragged into it pretty quick (as per usual). When the focus is on Irish people and the use of them in Ireland. Presumably because the poster is Irish and we're on an Irish forum. It seems we can't accept our own faults or criticism very well without dragging in others in brilliant "whataboutism" fashion.

In fairness, the OP did claim it was more prevalent here that in the states and posters have accepted that we do indeed make a bags of its and it's, albeit no more so than others.

Raconteuse

Stateofyou wrote: »

I actually see it a bit differently. The question or subject is "The Irish and Its and It's" yet American's were dragged into it pretty quick (as per usual). When the focus is on Irish people and the use of them in Ireland. Presumably because the poster is Irish and we're on an Irish forum. It seems we can't accept our own faults or criticism very well without dragging in others in brilliant "whataboutism" fashion.

People always say "only in Ireland" and other inane shyte along those lines though. It is a thing for people regularly to refer to universal occurrences as exclusively Irish.

Stateofyou

Raconteuse wrote: »

People always say "only in Ireland" and other inane shyte along those lines though. It is a thing for people regularly to refer to universal occurrences as exclusively Irish.

That’s true too!

colm_mcm

KiKi III wrote: »

I explained to a friend of mine the other day that “should of” is not a real phrase. I had to go into detail on how it’s a mishearing of “should’ve”.

He has a degree from trinity.

He should of going a bit longer

Church on Tuesday

Raconteuse wrote: »

People always say "only in Ireland" and other inane shyte along those lines though. It is a thing for people regularly to refer to universal occurrences as exclusively Irish.

It's that classic self loathing inferiority complex some have.

martingriff

martingriff wrote: »

When people go to 3rd Level and study degrees, it is modules for the course. They do not study English and grammar. So just because you go to 3rd Level does not necessarily mean your grammar or spelling will be good.

Exactly, I have a PhD and I’m terrible at spelling etc and it doesn’t bother me. All my writing is done on computers with auto correct and spell check etc so it’s never an issue.

Church on Tuesday

Hendrix Polite Suburbia wrote: »

Exactly, I have a PhD and I’m terrible at spelling etc and it doesn’t bother me. All my writing is done on computers with auto correct and spell check etc so it’s never an issue.

Do you not think there is something sad about that though? Not attacking you or anything, we all use autocorrect, but it seems that correct use of grammar in a instinctual way is becoming something of a lost art.

Greyfox

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Do you not think there is something sad about that though? Not attacking you or anything, we all use autocorrect, but it seems that correct use of grammar in a instinctual way is becoming something of a lost art.

Absolutely not, I think it's silly to see something sad about that. Modern technology improves things including the fact that some people forget the things they learn in primary school. We don't handwrite letters anymore so does it really matter if it becomes a lost art?

Church on Tuesday

Greyfox wrote: »

Absolutely not, I think it's silly to see something sad about that. Modern technology improves things including the fact that some people forget the things they learn in primary school. We don't handwrite letters anymore so does it really matter if it becomes a lost art?

I think it does.

Fritzbox

Achasanai

It's odd that the word 'its' is a possessive form yet most possessive forms require an apostrophe to indicate this. I wonder if it used to contain an apostrophe but got dropped along the way (which is what happens in language, despite what the grammar nazis think).

Junkyard Tom

Its not that important, is it lad's?

dxhound2005

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Its not that important, is it lad's?

Indeed 'tis not.

Quantum Erasure

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

It's that classic self loathing inferiority complex some have.

only in Ireland though

The Rape of Lucretia

MrAbyss wrote: »

I am not even close to being a grammar Nazi, but there is a huge issue in this country with the apostrophe.

I worked with professionals - who had top degrees - who didn't know their 'it's' from their 'its'.

Were they really top degrees though? There are really only three universities on these islands to get a top quality education and not make this type of mistake. Oxford. Cambridge. And Hull. I would guess that your colleagues have not gained their degrees in on of them.

Xertz

looksee wrote: »

That should surely be grocers' apostrophe since it was not a singular grocer that scattered apostrophes amongst his fruit and veg.

Geeky grammarian response:

Technically not, as a structure like that in English generally refers to an example of a single person or an item being used for illustrative purposes to describe a particular behaviour or specific item associated with that type of person e.g. a sailor's hitch, which refers to a particular type of knot.
As a result, the subject of the phrase is singular and the possessive apostrophe use is also singular.

looksee

Xertz wrote: »

Geeky grammarian response:

Technically not, as a structure like that in English generally refers to an example of a single person or an item being used for illustrative purposes to describe a particular behaviour or specific item associated with that type of person e.g. a sailor's hitch, which refers to a particular type of knot.
As a result, the subject of the phrase is singular and the possessive apostrophe use is also singular.

Well go on then, I'll grant you that

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Were they really top degrees though? There are really only three universities on these islands to get a top quality education and not make this type of mistake. Oxford. Cambridge. And Hull. I would guess that your colleagues have not gained their degrees in on of them.

Spelling and grammar etc is essentially meaningless in most courses. A top science degree or engineering degree does not in anyway judge your spelling or grammar. Why would it?

I was never any good at English or other languages, never was a great speller etc and in made zero difference in attaining a 1st class honours science degree or a PhD in science.

Junkyard Tom

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Oxford. Cambridge. And Hull. I would guess that your colleagues have not gained their degrees in on of them.

Boris Johnson, the idiot, demonstrates beautifully that social capital is often more valuable than intellectual capital.

I'd be surprised if Boris Johnson could successfully boil himself an egg.

beejee

All this autocomplete nonsense that fooks up half the time has done no favours for one of the fundamental pillars of communication.

If you are only as good in written communication as the portable device at hand, then you're not much good, are you?

Very much like primary education ditching basic mathematics because "sure, calculators, loike!"

beejee

beejee wrote: »

All this autocomplete nonsense that fooks up half the time has done no favours for one of the fundamental pillars of communication.

If you are only as good in written communication as the portable device at hand, then you're not much good, are you?

Very much like primary education ditching basic mathematics because "sure, calculators, loike!"

Why waste time doing stuff that you will never ever need as you will just use a calculator or a computer program to do it.

Same for learning stuff off, in the real world in work etc you just look what you need to know you don’t need to learn anything off, in fact it’s a bad idea trying to remember stuff rather than confirming it by looking it up.

beejee

Hendrix Polite Suburbia wrote: »

Why waste time doing stuff that you will never ever need as you will just use a calculator or a computer program to do it.

Same for learning stuff off, in the real world in work etc you just look what you need to know you don’t need to learn anything off, in fact it’s a bad idea trying to remember stuff rather than confirming it by looking it up.

It's the difference between being an actual scientist and some randomer with a connection to the Internet.

Look at the thread here on that corona virus, you see people posting information that sounds like they know what they're talking about, but it is highly probable they are only as knowledgeable as the paper they are reading in front of their face. And useless without.

I once had a problem with a very expensive machine, would have cost thousands, minimum, to just have someone come out to look at it.

However, because I actually understand the fundamentals of science and maths, I was able to solve the problem by going back to basics with a simple pen and paper. That's the difference right there.

It goes the same for written communication. If I'm interviewing someone in any capacity, I will purposely examine the fundamentals. If you think you're clever with a calculator yet can't calculate simple long division on your own, for example, you're done.

Scientific rigour. There's only so far you'll go before your bluff is called.