Bad English.

[pepecat]

I don't like the use of 'Arks' intead of 'Ask', or 'I done' instead of 'I did', or 'I come (in here yesterday)' instead of 'I came'
Get your past tense right, people!

Or should that be 'correct' instead of 'right'?

 

[yello]

or 'I done' instead of 'I did'

There is a school of thought that says that that particular construction is East London dialect - not poor grammar at all. Similarly, the double negative. As in 'I ain't done nuffin'.

 

[Apeman]

Why do the English use the word" draw" for"drawer" as in sock or knicker! Some people use the word "cerstificate" for "certificate"------"hostible" for "hospital". Language misuse is so common now that it is almost if not already acceptable! I remember one of my sons primary teachers telling me that spelling and grammar were not that important!!! Now we have a nation of semi illiterates some of which are running and ruining the country!

 

[sunnyjim]

A sign in the gent's at work:

"No drinking water in toilet."

Believe me, I have no intention of even taking a sip!


Restaurants and pubs are rapidly becoming places of irritation for me, with "I want..." and "Can I get..." now becoming the normal way to open a transaction with a member of staff.

Also seen:


"We aim to please - You aim too please"

 

[davefb]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w


enjoy

 

[Angelfishsolo]

was that in a lon per chance?
Reminds me of the signs on condom machines - I our business the customer always comes first.

Also seen:


"We aim to please - You aim too please"

 

[Angelfishsolo]

So should it be "No more than 5 items"?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w


enjoy

 

[marinyork]

I am not fussed to great extremes either way (I think one sounds better), but as I've pointed out before, this is a short extract of what an extremely famous book has to say on the matter...

Supermarket checkouts are correct when they display 5 items or less (which refers to a total amount), and are misguidedly pedantic when they read 5 items or fewer (which emphasizes individuality, surely not the intention)

Not that I don't appreciate Weird Al, as he's great .

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You could HAVE listened to your English teacher at school; not could OF listened!

What about "could've listened?"

 

[Brandane]

have[/b] listened".

 

[swee'pea99]

I am not fussed to great extremes either way (I think one sounds better), but as I've pointed out before, this is a short extract of what an extremely famous book has to say on the matter...

Not that I don't appreciate Weird Al, as he's great .

I don't know what the 'famous book' is, but it's talking crap. 'Items' are by definition numbered: you can have 5 or more or fewer, but you can't have less. You can have less only of stuff whose scale is measured by volume, not unit: less sand (fewer bricks), less oil (fewer cars), less water (fewer ice cubes).

Weird Al is a frigging genius. His palandromic take on the basement tapes is the cleverest bit of word play I've ever come cross, bar none. Do geese see God?

 

[slowmotion]

......wakes up briefly....rants about the use of the word "decimate" and nods off gently contemplating suicide.....

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[benb]

I also hate people who confuse disinterested and uninterested.

One is the cool unbiased appraisal of events (such as the application of justice) and the other is not giving a shoot.

 

[marinyork]

Fowler's Modern English Usage. It's a reasonably well known 'myth'. I used to be in a lot of book groups and forums where there would be the most ridiculous pedantry and they worshipped the book. Always found it a bit funny that despite this whenever it came to this very well known example, people seemed to ignore what the book had to say about it . Not anyone here, but I've encountered it a lot. I know which I prefer, but to rigidly insist one is definitely correct even after extensive discussions is a step too far to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by definition items are numbered. I think you mean by the convention of 'counting' things. Sure, it may not be a bad convention, but there's no meat to it once you get into pedantry. For example, what makes people think that items in a list or set have to be numbered? I think a lot of this has to do with people's misconceptions about 'numbers', 'variables', 'physical quantities' which goes into angelfishsolo's post about data, that only holds true if you see the world through a very narrow definition of what a few statisticians and social scientists think.

I'm very confused what you mean by 'volume' and 'unit'. This again seems to be a very loose convention that may be helpful rather than anything substantial.

 

[swee'pea99]

Fowler! Pah - what does he know?

Volume/unit: can you count them?

It is an anachronism, for sure, and one whose days are doubtless numbered. If you'll excuse the expression. After all, we seem to get by with just 'more' to cover greater than, so why do we need two distinct expressions to cover smaller than? (More petrol, more cars; less petrol, fewer cars.) And it does lead to some odd and arbitrary queries at the borderline, as it were. You can count peanuts, eg, but if someone was making peanut biscuits, it would seem a bit arbitrary to insist that they need fewer peanuts rather than less. (What, 387 rather than 412?)

Nevertheless, while modern english usage is no doubt going the way of Modern English Usage (tracking the one is, after all, the job of t'other), the fact remains that at least now, in this year of our lord 2011, the correct term for less of 'things you count' is 'fewer'; less of 'stuff you measure by amount' - 'less'. (In a sense directly analogous to that of people who object to references to 'the amount of children in the class'. No doubt this will one day become commonplace. But at least right now, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, Fowler notwithstanding, that the correct term is 'the number of children in the class'.)