Typos and mis-spellings

[bonj2]

The funniest one I ever saw was above the washbasins of a previous workplace, it said:

"WARNING. HOT WATER - MAYBE HOT!"​

For a start, there's the fact that they've written the right letters in the right order, and written no invalid words, but still managed to get it wrong - but the funniest bit is - the logical incosistency, HOT water is by definition hot!


comments on the below...

Brilliant, yes! I can hear it!

When we first arrived at York, we were all directed to the Rools of Riting Inglish departmental webpage:

"To start with, here are some short rules. The point is that each of them illustrates the common error that it describes. Read them carefully, and be sure that you can see the error.

1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with. don't see why there's anything wrong with ending a sentence with 'with'.


3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction. (but agree with this)

4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. don't get this...

I remember contributing a couple of my own to that list:
...
21. The splitting of phrasal verbs is something up with which I will not put.

I like sentences like this...

 

[Jaded]

The funniest one I ever saw was above the washbasins of a previous workplace, it said:

"WARNING. HOT WATER - MAYBE HOT!"​

I think it is trying to tell you that the boiler is on the blink.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Pedantic head on ... there is actually nothing at all wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. And that's all there is to it. This particular rule was invented, entirely arbitrarily, by some 19th Century cleric in a book he published. Somehow, it's become accepted by generations of English teachers. But there's no reason for it at all.

 

[Dave5N]

And that's a fact.

 

[mr_hippo]

Pedantic head on ... there is actually nothing at all wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. And that's all there is to it. This particular rule was invented, entirely arbitrarily, by some 19th Century cleric in a book he published. Somehow, it's become accepted by generations of English teachers. But there's no reason for it at all.

A conjunction is a connection - something that connects two words, phrases, or clauses together.

Pedantic head on ... there is actually nothing at all wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction and that's all there is to it. This particular rule was invented, entirely arbitrarily, by some 19th Century cleric in a book he published. Somehow, it's become accepted by generations of English teachers but there's no reason for it at all.

Pedantic head on ... there is actually nothing at all wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction. That's all there is to it. This particular rule was invented, entirely arbitrarily, by some 19th Century cleric in a book he published. Somehow, it's become accepted by generations of English teachers. There's no reason for it at all.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

But the underlying premise of my original post is still true. There's no reason for this "rule" at all. It doesn't matter how many other ways you can express it.

 

[simonali]

"Under new mangement". Sign outside a local pub recently. There was something about karaoke on there that was mis-spelt too, but I can't remember how they'd spelt it.

 

[mr_hippo]

But the underlying premise of my original post is still true. There's no reason for this "rule" at all. It doesn't matter how many other ways you can express it.

We will put it in cycling terms. Look at a brake or gear cable and what do you see? A cable that has a nipple at each end. Now put the cable on a bike - one nipple connects with the brake lever and the other with the brake and all will work.

Brake lever + nipple + cable + nipple + brake = the bike stops.

Remove the brake lever and what will happen?

Nipple + cable + nipple + brake = the bike does not stop.

Substitute the words 'brake lever', 'cable' and 'brake' for 'phrase' [or word or clause] and 'nipple' with 'conjunction' and what happens?

Phrase + conjunction + phrase + conjunction + Phrase = Correct sentence.

Conjunction + phrase + conjunction + Phrase = Incorrect sentence.

 

[Arch]

It is wrong to ever split an infinitive. don't get this...

To split an infinitive is to place a word between the 'to' and the verb. It should say, "It is wrong ever to split an infinitive"

The most famous split infinitive in history of course, being "To boldly go, where no man has gone before" , which should be "To go, boldly....", or "Boldly, to go...."

 

[mr_hippo]

The most famous split infinitive in history of course, being "To boldly go, where no man has gone before" , which should be "To go, boldly....", or "Boldly, to go...."

My English teacher, Charlie Middlehurst, advised us not to watch Star Trek because 'They split the infinitive"!

 

[TheDoctor]

Why is it wrong to (boldly) split an infinitive?

And the ST quote should be 'To boldly go where no-one has gone before.'
Next to Picard, Kirk was a bit rubbish.
Well, OK, a lot rubbish.
*hides*

 

[Arch]

Why is it wrong to (boldly) split an infinitive?

And the ST quote should be 'To boldly go where no-one has gone before.'
Next to Picard, Kirk was a bit rubbish.
Well, OK, a lot rubbish.
*hides*

Wasn't it "no man" originally? Not that I care. Much.

I don't know why it's wrong, and it's one of those rules that is widely given as a no-no, but I suspect many people don't know when it means...

Most grammatical rules are there to avoid misunderstanding, but there are a few that don't seem to mean much - I suspect they are more related to the roots of the language.

 

[Amanda P]

English is one of only a few languages in which it's possible to split an infinitive - in most languages, the infinitive is formed by an inflection (a word ending) rather than by using two words ("to split").

In the phrase "...to boldly go where no-one has gone before", no-one can be in any doubt about the meaning, so what's the problem?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that this was a rule invented by latin scholars, who felt that because you cannot to split an infinitive in latin, you should not split it in English.

 

[Pete]

You are missing the point, TheDoctor. Kirk and his crew of TOS are so much loved and admired by their followers (myself included) precisely because they were 'a bit rubbish'. Just like my fond memories of the very first Doctor Who (William Hartnell) because he was such a crap actor (he habitually turned up on set drunk, apparently). Some of us just adore tackiness.

Split infinitives? Not always a sin. I don't have the Fowler reference to hand, but I'll dig it up when I get home. That book definitely sanctions split infinitives in a few special cases. Many people deride Fowler, but all agree that it does lay down a set of standards...

 

[Amanda P]

But that's like saying that because you can't peel a cabbage, you shouldn't peel an onion.

(Adding to what I just said, not what Pete said. It's all happening too fast for me...)