Posted by
Gobbo, around 18th June 2005:
One for the grammar Nazi's around here:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazin...
Roy Corden, professor of language and literacy at Nottingham Trent University, says rules often make things more confusing.
"Take the apostrophe, there is so much confusion over how to use it you have to wonder if it has become dysfunctional," he says.
jeez. this is a PROFESSOR of language and literacy talking?
makes you wonder what hope the mere teacher, let alone man in the street, has got, with such an awesomely complex linguistic environment to struggle through.
salT's analysis of article:
• truss is protecting her income
• burridge is attempting to create one, or at least to acquire status
Posted by
Gobbo, around 19th June 2005:
Saltation, I am trying to boost the world's use of the apostrophe, you should leave it in Nazi's ;)
He's right. If you stopped using apostrophes then within two generations people will wonder what all the fuss is about. There's very little use for the apostrophe as it doesn't denote any intonation and as an inflection it's pretty redundant.
For example, the cats legs. Grammatically incorrect, but when spoken sounds exactly the same as the correct version.
Posted by
Brock, around 19th June 2005:
But written speech is entirely ambiguous, so your argument doesn't work at all. In your particular example, context would usually allow correct interpretation, but if there were several cats, you still wouldn't know which legs were being referred to.
The entire point of correct spelling, grammar and use of words is to convey clear, unambiguous meaning. This can only be done with brevity with correct and knowledgable usage.
Much in the same way that the Campaign for Simple English screwed up all the brochures for banks and the like, reducing the available punctuation as well will mean that no-one will know what the hell is going on.
exactly brock
The cat's legs
The cats' legs
Two completely different things. Much clearer to understand what is meant if they are written correctly.
Posted by
Gobbo, around 19th June 2005:
know "ehich" legs?
Oh, I am becoming a spelling Nazi('s)!
"there is so much confusion over how to use it"
Yeah, it is like soooooo confusing.
Look at all the grammar Nazis
Look at the grammar Nazi's moustache
Look at the grammar Nazis' moustaches
Posted by
Brock, around 19th June 2005:
The only confusing one is "its" or "it's".
And even that is easy. When it replaces "it is" it becomes "it's", every other time it is "its".
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww
it's a jolly 'oliday with Mareeeeeee.
ah yes, the shopkeeper's apostrophe
carrots pound a pound!
. that poor pound
no, carrot's £1/lb
. oh, 'sorry
This is totally insane.
what does the apostrophe do?
The cat's legs.
The cats' legs.
The cats legs.
The cat's legs (this is one cat)
The cats' legs (This is two or more cats)
so just by putting the aphostrophe in the right place we now know if we are talking about cat singular or cats plural
In other use, it can show us where a letter has been removed.
in "don't" (do not) it shows that the o has been removed.
Isn't (Is not) looks weird spelt Isnt
You're looks weird spelt youre. Although, tragically, it is more often spelt "your" which is so wrong it actually HURTS,
(which is occasionally spelt Hertz)
In fact "your" used when someone means "you are" is the worst one by far. People say it doesn't matter, but "you're" and "your" mean totally different things.
Your car. fine
You're at home? fine
Your at home? NO NO NO. "at home" doesn't belong to you, like the car.
People say that the "your" thing doesn't matter. But the fact is it makes the person using the wrong one look like a stupid fuck.
The words mean different things, just as dog and fish mean different things. It wouldn't be acceptable to get fish and dog mixed up all the time. You might end up leaving a note saying you are off dogging when you meant to say fishing.
Having said that. I have a mental block regarding giraffes and zebras. Can never get them the right way around.
Posted by
Brock, around 20th June 2005:
The Zebra always goes first, cos the Giraffe can see over the top of it with it's extra long neck.
Also, that way, the Giraffe has a fighting chance of getting the traffic stopped should he happen upon a road in the African Bush.
Actually I'd like another piece of punctuation. Those little inverted question marks that they have in spanish. Handy for knowing that the sentence is a question before you get to the end, so when you are reading something out you can use the right inflection. Although having said that, english questions start off with words such as How, What, Where, When, Do, Why. So that's a clue.
¿Don't you think that this would be better though?
Thanks for the help with the zebra/giraffe thing. I know the difference if I think about it. But if I see a giraffe in a shop window (a pet shop probably), then 9 times out of 10, I will say "look at that cool zebra".
Posted by
WarHead, around 21st June 2005:
Having said that. I have a mental block regarding giraffes and zebras. Can never get them the right way around.
Oh, I can help you with that. If shit comes out of the orifice nearest to you, you're near the back. If a tongue comes out, you're at the front. But having said that, there is not really any 'right' way around for giraffes and zebras, except for other giraffes and zepbras.
>Having said that. I have a mental block regarding giraffes and zebras. Can never get them the right way around.
the side with FOUR pointy bits goes DOWN
(some of them may have five. politely ignore this)
hands up everyone who knows WHY english's genitive (possessive) case has an apostrophe? ie, which letter is missing and why?
I'm a big culprit at abusing
their and
there. I don't think I ever abuse they're.
Mostly it is just a spelling error when I do it.
some of them may have five.
This seems harmless enough.
out of context.
Posted by
reitsma, around 21st June 2005:
I actually just finished reading the book they mention in that article; it's a fun read.
There were some persuasive arguments for retaining the hyphen - such as:
There is quite a difference between extra marital sex and extra-marital sex.
And i think apostrophes are essential. Context does
not always provide enough information. And why is the normal (contractive) apostrophe useful? Simply to distinguish "were" and "we're"?
I firmly believe that anyone who decides to throw an apostrophe into a non-possessive plural "Get your apple's here!" deserves to be shot on the spot.
Posted by
ellipse, around 21st June 2005:
is it worse to abuse language or kittens?
Posted by
reitsma, around 21st June 2005:
The worst, by far, is to abuse kitten's.
Posted by
ellipse, around 21st June 2005:
so what is the fuss over abuse of the enlgiush languagge
americans keep drowning it in sax
i was going to type: sax^H' ; but i think only cal would get the reference and even then would have to read ^H non-destructively and then x phonetically to have a hope of getting it. so i won't.