Wither English?

[sechs]

Things that piss me off:

Becos after a while hanging ard here u form yr a 'homebase' in the forums with people u know here..and u realise that you take up some efforts to maintain amd contribute to this place too.

I'm a a bad speller... but this guy isn't even trying. "You" has three letters in it, damn it!

 

[Bozo]

A 'Hooked on Phonics' graduate.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[Mercutio]

loose vs. lose
Ur vs. Your and U vs. you
rediculous vs. ridiculous
4 vs. for
2 vs. too
to vs. too

IM/texting-speak is evil.

 

[LunarMist]

Another dreaded one:

there/their/they're

 

[Groltz]

The "loose" instead of "lose" is what drives me mad.

 

[CityK]

Another dreaded one:

there/their/they're

I'm particularly prone to that one...its not that I don't know the difference, its just a sympathetic neuromuscular typing thing

 

[sechs]

Some of these are just confusions. Folks who didn't learn anything in elementary school English.

What really peaves me is this stupid-ass IM-speak.

Anyone see the pre-merger Sprint ad with the twins? "where ru" "bright back"

 

[Tannin]

The "loose" instead of "lose" is what drives me mad.

Guilty as charged, Your Worship.

I can never remember which one is which. Makes me come over all lexdixic.

 

[Buck]

Yes, the loose and lose bug me too. But, I'm guilty of mixing to and too, or than and then.

 

[sechs]

I made a post in the BARTER section of Craigslist recently. I was contacted by a guy who is, more likely than not, an idiot, wanting to BUY the items which I wanted to trade with. I let him know that I was looking to BARTER not BUY, and suggested that, if he was willing to buy the items, that he do that. I get back:

"Hmm I should huh.. Y trade u huh. I mean my money must be too good for u"

WTF! Was this guy actually trying to transact business with anyone?

 

[CougTek]

I'm doing my best to avoid mixing up to/too - their/there/they're - then/than. The middle one particularly gets on my nerves when I'm reading others, so that's the one I'm the most careful about.

My excuses to anyone who might be upset-ed by my casual spelling mistakes/confusing sentences twists. To my discharge, I almost never speak in English. The only person to whom I talk in internet-default language is a Greek co-worker and that's no more than 20 sentences per week, half of which only consist of "Hi [his name]". And I'm sure you all suck more in French than me in English ;-)

 

[i]

Je pense que c'est garanti.

(C'est dommage ... I can't even remember how to handle the past tense in French now.)

 

[i]

Then:

1. As part of a chronology, conditional or otherwise:

"First a home is found, then the gasoline is poured, and then a match is lit."

As part of a chronology tied to a condition: If one thing happens (or is true), then another thing will happen (or will be true). For example, "If we find some gasoline, then that house is going to burn!"

Than:

1. A comparison:

"I can attract more women than even ddrueding can. My strength is greater than that of Hercules', and I am better looking than Fabio. I am also more of a liar than Tea."

2. To counter one thing with another (hint: if you've used the word "rather", you need to use the word "than"):

"Rather than continuing to post on this never-ending topic, I'm going to take a nap."

 

[Tea]

Easier version of i's post:

than compare things

then a particular time

 

[i]

I'll wager that few of the people here at SF know when to use the word "bring" as opposed to when to use the word "take". In fact, I'll bet most of you -- if not all of you -- think they're completely interchangeable, without any impact to the meaning of the sentence.

But for the love of cheese, don't ask me for an explanation.

 

[i]

Easier version of i's post:

than compare things

then a particular time

Yes, I guess point #2 under my "than" explanation above is really just a special case that applies only to the phrase "rather than."

In a nutshell, if you can't remember that the phrase is always "rather than", then just use the phrase "instead of" instead.

 

[mubs]

i[/i]]"I can attract more women than even ddrueding can. My strength is greater than that of Hercules', and I am better looking than Fabio. I am also more of a liar than Tea."

Now you're really in trouble!

 

[Tea]

bring vs take Huh? What's so hard about that? You bring things to something or someone, you take things away from something or someone. Am I missing something?

 

[Tannin]

My pet hate: You can have this for free

"Free" means "for nothing". Period. End of debate. No question. Would you say "you can have this for for nothing? Grrraaah!

 

[mubs]

"I was at the ATM machine when you visited my home."

ATM = Automated Teller Machine. So,

"I was at the Automated Teller Machine machine when you visited my home."

 

[Tannin]

Speaking of which, why do certain illiterate stains on the gene pool then make things even worse by saying I got it for cheap? Correct usage:

I got it cheaply
It was cheap.

There is never a "for" in front of the "cheap". (Or the "free".) Never.

 

[mubs]

"If, suppose, you win the game, ......" or its twin, "Suppose, if we were to go out...". Redundancy.

What I really detest is "goes". As in, when a conversation is being related, "He goes, 'When did you get here?' I go, 'Yesterday.' He goes, 'Why didn't you call me?' I go, 'I was too busy'" etc.

The other one is "like". Universal word. Can be used, like, anywhere, like, in a sentence, like, as many times as, like, the stuttering brain, like, wants to.

 

[i]

*sigh*

An edit button would be so handy.

I just remembered our old friend, "other than." Would anyone like to take a stab at explaining where "rather than" and "other than" fit in? Please? My brain hurts, and I'm running out of eloquence.

It seems to me that they're both still comparisons. But in case #1 you're comparing options that are simply greater or lesser than each other. Those ones are nice and easy to catch and explain.

But in the case of "rather than" you're comparing options that are alternatives from any perspective, and in the case of "other than" you're singling out an option as being impossible to compare with -- or at least special compared with -- anything else.

Maybe?

"Other than these old sweat socks, I don't see what could be making this room so stinky."

"Rather than hang out here any longer and risk passing out, I think we should make a hasty exit."

 

[jtr1962]

While on the subject of improper usage newscasters drive me nuts. For example, they'll refer to yesterday as "last Sunday", assuming that today is Monday. Now the way I learned it "last Sunday" means the Sunday before the one that just passed, and you simply say Sunday when referring to the last one. And then they pronounce the work "shiek" as "shake" and harassment as "har-ass-ment" instead of "ha-rass-ment". :x And of course their improper usage of last carries over when referring to months as well. If someone tells me that something happened in July, I know that they mean July 2005. If someone says "last July", then to me that's July 2004 but in newscaster-speak it's July 2005.

Oh, and on the main topic the teachers are to blame. I was aghast to learn that my niece's teachers were encouraging the kids to spell phonetically, with the thought that we can teach them the correct spelling later on. I almost puked when I saw her spell "out" as "awt". :eekers:

 

[i]

bring vs take Huh? What's so hard about that? You bring things to something or someone, you take things away from something or someone. Am I missing something?

I don't know.

Seriously.

My instinct usually follows your line of reasoning, but in both the United States and Canada, it's been rare for me to find someone who didn't use those two words interchangeably. I can't give you an explanation as to how they manage to do that. It hurts my head if I think about it too much.

You might like this explanation, Tea. At one point the author points out that you also have to delve into the difference between "come" and "go", and mentions an entire lecture on that topic (yes, really):

These lectures are among the most fascinating and approachable pieces of linguistics that exist in the English language, and are highly recommended.

High praise. I have to say that I'd like to read them someday.

But back to "bring" and "take", this page includes a lot of helpful examples of the difference.

 

[Tannin]

Suppose, if we were to go out, and you got pulled over for a breath test ...

Perfectly good English. Notice, however, that having the "if" and the "suppose" is only justified because there are two suppositions in the sentence. It's saying "suppose we go out" and also "suppose the police stop us to make sure the driver hasn't been drinking".

If, suppose, you win the game, you are awarded the medal for best on ground ....

Same deal: two "if" suppositions in there, so two "ifs" is perfectly OK. Not one of the most elegant sentences ever constructed, but perfectly legitimate.

These are obviously nit-picking exceptions. Your general complaint, Mubs, is of course valid.

 

[i]

While on the subject of improper usage newscasters drive me nuts. For example, they'll refer to yesterday as "last Sunday", assuming that today is Monday. Now the way I learned it "last Sunday" means the Sunday before the one that just passed, and you simply say Sunday when referring to the last one. And then they pronounce the work "shiek" as "shake" and harassment as "har-ass-ment" instead of "ha-rass-ment". :x And of course their improper usage of last carries over when referring to months as well. If someone tells me that something happened in July, I know that they mean July 2005. If someone says "last July", then to me that's July 2004 but in newscaster-speak it's July 2005.

Good point, jtr. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's seen inconsistency on that topic.

I've been bounced around by that point of confusion off-and-on throughout my life. Continuing your example, that has long ago conditioned me to say, "this past July," and, "July of last year," in an effort to avoid confusion on either side. I haven't said, "last July," since I was a kid. It's just too risky.

 

[sechs]

I'm sorry kids, but you have it wrong. The "last" of anything is the immediately previous one. So, last Sunday is the immediately previous Sunday; in this case, the day before (why wouldn't they say yesterday?). Last July was July, 2005. July, 2005, is "a year ago, last July."

I'm torked by folks confusing "this" and "next" when refering to dates. If it's Monday, "this Tuesday" is tomorrow and "next Tuesday" is in eight days. This problem is confounded by the "the next" construction, which is synonymous with "this"; "the next Tuesday" is always "this Tuesday."

 

[Tannin]

Sorry JTR, on this one the newscasters are 100% right and you are wrong. "Last Sunday" is, and can only be the Sunday immediately previous to the present moment. (That's what "last" means: the thing that happened most recently.)

So, if you say "last Sunday" on a Monday, it means yesterday. If you say it on a Sunday, then it means the last one before this current one, i.e., Sunday a week ago.

It is exactly the same with "next". "Next Saturday" means (and can only mean) "the first Saturday to happen after this present moment". Here in Oz right now, it is lunchtime on Tuesday 13th. So "next Saturday" is four days away, Saturday 17th. It is not, not not Saturday 24th! The 24th is the "Saturday after next", or depending on whether you speak proper English or some bastardised local dialect, "Saturday week".

But when it comes to "harass" and "harassment", you are absolutely right. Harass rhymes with Paris. Any other way of saying the word is sub-literate.

 

[Tannin]

i, think about it this way: compare to weeks. I just explained that "last Sunday" was two days ago (it's Tuesday here), but you can check the logic of it, and see that everything makes sense when you think about weeks instead of days.

When you say "last week", you mean "the week before this present week". Everybody knows what "last week" means. No-one would call the week that finished 9 days ago "last week". "Last Sunday" is exactly the same: the Sunday imediately preceeding this present moment.

 

[jtr1962]

I actually find the use of last more confusing as relating to months rather than days of the week. If someone says something happened in July, then we can safely assume that they meant July 2005 because July 2006 hasn't occurred yet and they're (their :mrgrn: ) using the past tense. However, what if someone says last July? You're saying that they still mean July 2005 instead of July 2004? I've actually fallen into the habit of appending the year on the month when talking to people to eliminate the ambiguity. Maybe I should start appending the date to the day of the week as well except I can't even remember what today is, much less what date Saturday, er I mean last Saturday, um, the Saturday before the next one, oh never mind :mrgrn: , came on.

BTW, any comments on the pronunciation of the word "sheik" (sorry about the earlier mispelling)? I'm pretty sure the newscasters have it wrong. A "shake" to me is something you get at McDonalds with your hamburger.

 

[Fushigi]

"I was at the ATM machine when you visited my home."

ATM = Automated Teller Machine. So,

"I was at the Automated Teller Machine machine when you visited my home."

Asynchronous Transfer Mode, actually. Do ATMs use ATM?

Yeah, that's a pet peeve of mine. Acronyms were meant to shorten these terms to something manageable and yet here we are expanding them and actually making them worse. Another I see all the time: "DNS server" - Domain Name Server server. The sad thing is I see that one so much I catch myself saying it on occasion.

"Quarter of 5" for time. Despite a "quarter of" a dollar being 25 cents, it doesn't mean 1.25 (1:15 in time-speak); it means 4.75 (4:45 in time-speak).

"Spring forward, fall back" or anything to do with daylight "savings" time. Should really be daylight shifting time since it doesn't "save" anything. And while the clocks are sprung forward, we ourselves are falling back and vice versa. So the way we remember what to do gives clocks - a human device of dubious value - precedence over humans. How dumb is that?

 

[Buck]

BTW, any comments on the pronunciation of the word "sheik" (sorry about the earlier mispelling)? I'm pretty sure the newscasters have it wrong. A "shake" to me is something you get at McDonalds with your hamburger.

Etymology: Arabic shaykh Find the Arabic pronunciation and we'll have a clue. Merriam-Webster accepts both pronunciations as being proper.

 

[mubs]

Sir Tannin: Two suppositions back to back is defintely wrong.

Perfectly good English. Notice, however, that having the "if" and the "suppose" is only justified because there are two suppositions in the sentence. It's saying "suppose we go out" and also "suppose the police stop us to make sure the driver hasn't been drinking".

In this case, it would be better to say it like you have quoted it - putting the supposition immediately before each phrase instead of together in the front.

But if you said "suppose we go out and the police stop us to make sure the driver hasn't been drinking", the first suppose carries over to the next phrase as well, making the meaning the same as "suppose we go out and suppose the police stop us to make sure the driver hasn't been drinking". So you don't need two suppositions in the sentence.

 

[mubs]

Some irritants here for Sechs.

 

[sechs]

Another I see all the time: "DNS server" - Domain Name Server server. The sad thing is I see that one so much I catch myself saying it on occasion.

I thought that DNS stood for "domain name system"; this makes "DNS server" sensical.

"Quarter of 5" for time. Despite a "quarter of" a dollar being 25 cents, it doesn't mean 1.25 (1:15 in time-speak); it means 4.75 (4:45 in time-speak).

This is contraction. For better or worse, it's now an acceptable construction in English.

 

[Fushigi]

I thought that DNS stood for "domain name system"; this makes "DNS server" sensical.

You are correct. Still, there are plenty of other instances like the above "ATM Machine" where people abuse the acronym.

"Quarter of 5" for time. Despite a "quarter of" a dollar being 25 cents, it doesn't mean 1.25 (1:15 in time-speak); it means 4.75 (4:45 in time-speak).

This is contraction. For better or worse, it's now an acceptable construction in English.

I agree that we accept it, but that doesn't make it right. BTW, what is it contracting?

 

[mubs]

"Quarter of 5" sounds really weird to me. Shouldn't it be "Quarter to 5"?

 

[Buck]

"Quarter of 5" sounds really weird to me. Shouldn't it be "Quarter to 5"?

According to the dictionary, as a preposition, the word "of" can be used as a function word to indicate the position in time. With this usage, "of" becomes a synonym of "before".

Interestingly, in German, the quarter, half and three-quarter measurements of an hour are quite common -- expressions such as "half-five" (4:30), or "three-quarters-five" (4:45) are used. (These are direct translations. Essentially, you're stating how much of the hour has passed.)

 

[timwhit]

You'se guy's is making I head hurts.