RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

LanceHughes -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 12:08:57 AM)

DRIVE SLOWLY is another losing battle.  The "ly" at the end of adverbs has practically disappeared.  Most still say "Drive carefully," instead of the nail-on-chalkboard: "drive careful."




MistressDarkArt -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 12:37:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: littlewonder

It's sad that our newspaper here in Baltimore is actually renowned for its spelling and grammar errors. You would think the paper is written by 5th graders because it's so atrocious.

I mean it's a newspaper. You would think that anyone in the business of writing, copywriting and editing could take the time to fix their errors.





As well as the ads placed in them. Who proofs these things? I'd be pissed as hell if I paid for a half-page and either the paper messed it up or they didn't catch an inadvertent typo when I sent in my ad copy.

On the other hand it's good fodder for Leno's "Headlines" since it's rampant everywhere.



Termyn8or -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 1:15:09 AM)

Baltimoe ? You siti is fugdup. you kanteven dial a fukn phone there.

T^T



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 2:08:23 AM)

Yesterday on a morning radio show here, they question was "How many words were misspelled in the 19something Webster's Dictionary?" 

The correct answer was 300 something.

There, I would expect everything to be spelled correctly.  Here, as long as I can tell what they are saying, I don't really give a damn.



PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 3:08:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

In general, "who" for "whom" and vice-versa.  As in the OP, there's a simple substitution that clears up which to use:  "I'm going to pick whoever I want to."  WRONG ! ! !  One wouldn't say "I'm picking he," but rather, "I'm picking him."  Thus, the m in him, says "use 'whomever'."   Correcting this particular peeve is a losing - actually lost - battle. Whomever cares anymore has given up.  (That's a JOKE, folks.  A joke! "He cares" vs. "Him cares.")


Thanks for that, Lance. I've actually never understood the 'whom' and 'who' rule - I've only ever got by with some vague sense of what looks right and what doesn't.



Epytropos -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 3:14:46 AM)

Two things.

Firstly, whom is acted upon, who acts. Who bought this? For whom was this bought? Who bought this for whom? In technical terms, whom is the object form, whereas who is the subject form. For the most part, instinct will suffice if you are a native speaker.

Secondly, who gives a flying fuck how other people talk or type? Unless someone is paying you to edit their work or teach them English it is none of your concern what mistakes they do or do not make, so long as their speech is communicative. God help me if I ever reach that level of pretentious arrogance.



PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 3:32:29 AM)

Thanks for that tip - genuinely!

But re your second point,

Yes. I have to say that the people I've come across who've been most into grammar and spelling I've considered to be, shall we say, 'of the secretarial class'. They could proof-read a book or a play, but never write one. They've also had personalities that have been shot through with authoritarianism (per T W Adorno) and have shown some fundamental love, or even need, for an 'ultimate authority'.

Thus, for them, no sentence must *ever* start with an 'And'. It doesn't matter that hundreds of the greatest writers ever, including Shakespeare, frequently started sentences with 'And'. It's as though, to them, the nameless, unlamented grammarians who put all the rules together in the past are more important than those great writers. Said great writers 'broke the rules', and that is that. Rules, after all, aren't made by people - they come from God Himself.




Seatonstomb -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 4:17:52 AM)

Get Over it!
I bet you do not use proper English. Putting a y at the beginning of passive verbs.
Such as -
He was yclept Richard. Or He was ynamed Richard.
I suppose you also think the inhabited means to be lived in. Strictly speaking it does not. Originally there were just habited (lived in) and inhabited (not lived in). Some one added un as an intensifier to inhabited and now we have the mess we have today with inhabited meaning bot lived in and not lived in.
Dis and Un have been in many cases added to words to intensify their meaning causing the stem word's meaning to shift or creating two words with the same meaning.
Then of course one has dialect. Why do all you Yanks spell everthing wrong? Colour/Colour. Centre/Centre. Care to guess what woffle means?  eg Gooin Waffling. Its Brummie for to date?
Language changes if you want grammar and spelling conformity go and speak french with its academy francais.
As for me I was taught spell as you feel. How one spells or writes English is a product of ones schooling (passing educational fads) where you're from and times you live in.
"It is a poor man who can spell a word but a single way"
Andrew Jackson.  http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/1838
Thanks DarkSteven for the reference
 How many ways did Shakespear spell his own name.
As long as you can get across your meaning does it really matter.
TTFN (now there is a bit of Brummie that entered the national consciousness.)



Seatonstomb -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 4:30:20 AM)

One could also go on about proper use of pronouns.
I suppose that thee just uses you without even considering thee, thou and  thine.
Poor grammar.
Only pick holes in others grammar when you use it perfectly and correctly. For every grammar mistake you find in another's writing there will be someone who finds three in yours all just a matter of perspective and which English grammar rules you use.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:42:57 AM)

Gee. I wish I could find someone in the "secretarial class" like you are describing. That would be a dream come true, I have been looking for an assistant like that for years. Accuracy and grammar matter in my work, and I am tired of proof reading my assistant's work, instead of the the other way around.
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Thanks for that tip - genuinely!

But re your second point,

Yes. I have to say that the people I've come across who've been most into grammar and spelling I've considered to be, shall we say, 'of the secretarial class'. They could proof-read a book or a play, but never write one. They've also had personalities that have been shot through with authoritarianism (per T W Adorno) and have shown some fundamental love, or even need, for an 'ultimate authority'.

Thus, for them, no sentence must *ever* start with an 'And'. It doesn't matter that hundreds of the greatest writers ever, including Shakespeare, frequently started sentences with 'And'. It's as though, to them, the nameless, unlamented grammarians who put all the rules together in the past are more important than those great writers. Said great writers 'broke the rules', and that is that. Rules, after all, aren't made by people - they come from God Himself.





mnottertail -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:50:00 AM)

Thus, for them, no sentence must *ever* start with an 'And'. It doesn't matter that hundreds of the greatest writers ever, including Shakespeare, frequently started sentences with 'And'. It's as though, to them, the nameless, unlamented grammarians who put all the rules together in the past are more important than those great writers. Said great writers 'broke the rules', and that is that. Rules, after all, aren't made by people - they come from God Himself.

I think one of the nearly whole genesis (one of the books of moses anywhoo) starts with Ands...

And those boys, the ones what wrote it, went to some pretty good grammar schools.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:51:28 AM)

And should never begin a sentence. Is that what you're saying there Ron? [8D]



mnottertail -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:54:42 AM)

Only when you attend 8th or 9th grade english class. The prohibition is more concerned with reducing sentence fragments in naif authors than as an element of style and propriety.

Strunk and White has no casus belli regarding it.

AND you can quote me.



xxblushesxx -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:57:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Thus, for them, no sentence must *ever* start with an 'And'. It doesn't matter that hundreds of the greatest writers ever, including Shakespeare, frequently started sentences with 'And'. It's as though, to them, the nameless, unlamented grammarians who put all the rules together in the past are more important than those great writers. Said great writers 'broke the rules', and that is that. Rules, after all, aren't made by people - they come from God Himself.

I think one of the nearly whole genesis (one of the books of moses anywhoo) starts with Ands...

And those boys, the ones what wrote it, went to some pretty good grammar schools.


Writers who take creative liberties with the language only do so after learning how to properly use such language. It is apparent when reading literature when authors are using "voice" to depict their characters. This often requires breaking the rules they have steadfastly learned and adhered to in other areas.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 7:57:53 AM)

I actually did that in a HS English class when the teacher told us just that about beginning a sentence with "and".

She just looked at me and sighed and shook her head. Why I remembered it from 35 years ago, who knows? It's just one of those wierd tidbits I guess.



LanceHughes -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 8:53:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Gee. I wish I could find someone in the "secretarial class" like you are describing. That would be a dream come true, I have been looking for an assistant like that for years. Accuracy and grammar matter in my work, and I am tired of proof reading my assistant's work, instead of the the other way around.
<snipped>

I stand ready to be hired, Ma'am.

Now that would be an odd combination, would it not? 



LanceHughes -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 9:04:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes
In general, "who" for "whom" and vice-versa.  As in the OP, there's a simple substitution that clears up which to use:  "I'm going to pick whoever I want to."  WRONG ! ! !  One wouldn't say "I'm picking he," but rather, "I'm picking him."  Thus, the m in him, says "use 'whomever'."<snipped>

Thanks for that, Lance. I've actually never understood the 'whom' and 'who' rule - I've only ever got by with some vague sense of what looks right and what doesn't.
You're MOST welcome, Peon.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Epytropos
<snipped>
Firstly, whom is acted upon, who acts. Who bought this? For whom was this bought? Who bought this for whom? In technical terms, whom is the object form, whereas who is the subject form. For the most part, instinct will suffice if you are a native speaker.
<snipped>

Correct, but as peon says, he didn't really understand that rule.  Your examples of "Who bought this? For whom was this bought? Who bought this for whom?" could easily be followed by my "hint" as "He bought this. It was bought for him. He bought this for him."



mnottertail -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 9:06:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LanceHughes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Gee. I wish I could find someone in the "secretarial class" like you are describing. That would be a dream come true, I have been looking for an assistant like that for years. Accuracy and grammar matter in my work, and I am tired of proof reading my assistant's work, instead of the the other way around.
<snipped>

I stand ready to be hired, Ma'am.

Now that would be an odd combination, would it not? 



Odd combination for whom, Lance?

(lol, how'd I do?) him or herm?



PeonForHer -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 10:04:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Gee. I wish I could find someone in the "secretarial class" like you are describing. That would be a dream come true, I have been looking for an assistant like that for years. Accuracy and grammar matter in my work, and I am tired of proof reading my assistant's work, instead of the the other way around.



To be crystal clear here, because I'm well-used to the phenomenon of CM's discussions turning into black versus white with no shade of grey allowed or even recognised as such: I'm not suggesting that bad grammar is always allowable. It isn't. The principle reason why it isn't is that it makes writing difficult to understand and thus an obstruction to communication. On the other hand I *am* saying that there's a type of person who's pretty well educated, but allows the anal side of him or herself to rule. Grammar is the master of such people in their communication, whereas it should be their servant.



littlewonder -> RE: Yes, I AM the spelling police! (10/20/2011 10:12:37 AM)

Online, I don't really care how people type unless it's so bad that I can't even decipher it. At that point I just pass it on by because I'm not going to sit here and try to figure it out.

If I'm interested in someone for a relationship and being that I find dominant men to be attractive, then yes the way he spells,  his grammar is going to be important to me. He could be the smartest man alive but if he is claiming to be a dominant personality man then he's going to care about how he comes across in his typewritten words to me.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875