Grammar Discussions

[Buzzard]

I use it enough that it ain't corrected by autocorrect. Or autocorrect ain't bothered by it.

Ain't it been added to your Word dictionary?

 

[JessicaTam]

Given the name of the band is 'The Angels', I.e. Plural, isn't the correct form an Angels' song?

Fourth time lucky!

 

[Pushka]

Fourth time lucky!

As long as it's not forth time!

 

[DeKa]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

And "Shouldn't've"?

I saw a similar attempt with could...
I couldn't of been happier, they had the best range of furniture and very friendly staff.

 

[JessicaTam]

As long as it's not forth time!

Oh four goodness sake!

 

[burmans]

But I guess Jetconnect is technically New Zealand

I think you'll find that while we like to make fun of our Kiwi cousins they are much more British aligned than Australians are (where we seem much more accepting of US phrasing/customs and happy to mix and match US/UK spelling and grammar) so in general they are more pedantic than us on this matter.

 

[Danger]

For example, I cringe when I read things such as "Qantas are going to...". Qantas is a company; a singular entity. It should be "Qantas is going to...". Similarly it should be "the team is going to lunch" and not "the team are going to lunch". Now, you could write "the members of the team are going to lunch" because "members" is plural.

That missue is prolific on AFF.

I think Qantas even gets it wrong in their safety briefing: "Remember, the team are here to look after you" when it should be the team is here.

Given the name of the band is 'The Angels', I.e. Plural, isn't the correct form an Angels' song?

But wouldn't that imply there is more than one angel? For example, if we were talking the beings in the sky, we would say 'The Angel's pray' or, if there was more than one angel, it would be the 'The Angels' pray'. Given the band is called the Angels, shouldn't it be 'The Angels's song'? In my opinion, while it looks clumsy, the former (the Angels' song) suggests multiple angels.

 

[Cossie]

Anyone with a simple way of getting "infer" and "imply" correct?

 

[burmans]

Oh four goodness sake!

Actually your post bought to mind another factor of correct grammar, a grammatically correct sentence should contain both a subject and a verb.

And don't get me started on the habits of some who like to use extensive CAPITALISATION to emphasise their POINT.

 

[JessicaTam]

Actually your post bought to mind another factor of correct grammar, a grammatically correct sentence should contain both a subject and a verb.

And don't get me started on the habits of some who like to use extensive CAPITALISATION to emphasise their POINT.

The subject can be implied, as in "(You) come here".

 

[codash1099]

I think you'll find that while we like to make fun of our Kiwi cousins they are much more British aligned than Australians are (where we seem much more accepting of US phrasing/customs and happy to mix and match US/UK spelling and grammar) so in general they are more pedantic than us on this matter.

"Much more pedantic than we are"

 

[anat0l]

Anyone with a simple way of getting "infer" and "imply" correct?

I don't have a tip, although the differences between both are quite subtle. Dictionary.com states as a usage note:

Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: [for example] 'The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government'. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.

There are some contexts where one word seems clearly correct and not interchangeable, for example:

As the board of directors studied the graph, they inferred that the new business plan was working successfully.

That man was not implying that we should rise up in a coup, despite his vitriolic tone against the government.

Actually your post bought to mind another factor of correct grammar, a grammatically correct sentence should contain both a subject and a verb.

And don't get me started on the habits of some who like to use extensive CAPITALISATION to emphasise their POINT.

I think the whole CAPITALISATION thing was more common about 20 years or more ago, when word processors were not very common, or at least the production of machined documents which either used typewriters and/or minimal formatting, limited to sometimes only underlining (and some of that underlining was hand drawn!). Without bolding or italics, this seemed like another way of getting the point across.

It also appeals to younger kids because they see the emphasis without trying to appreciate the subtler points of formatting. Frequent formatting of bolded words in a passage without explicit purpose also leads to an undesirable "chocolate chip effect" (italics is preferred in this case, but too much italics also looks odd). This is all likely changing now with our much more computer savvy younger generations.

People would still use all caps to make a point if formatting abilities are lacking, but it's used sparingly as we're taught that all caps means one is shouting, which is frowned upon. Partly thanks to IRC and Microsoft Word (I think), using asterisks (i.e. *....*) is another way to emphasise something subtly if no formatting is available. Even some style guides have advocated that all caps should not be used for headings, and instead if all caps is used, then to use small capital letters in place of lower case (most word processing programs can do this). Some of those guides even advocated that this should be extended to acronyms, e.g. instead of UNICEF, type UNICEF, but I think this is unnecessary and going too far.

 

[anat0l]

One that used to get me a lot of the time was "enquire" (or enquiry) and "inquire" (or inquiry).

Turns out there's very little difference at all between both, except the former is more popular amongst the UK and the latter the US.

 

[Pushka]

Actually your post bought to mind another factor of correct grammar, a grammatically correct sentence should contain both a subject and a verb.

And don't get me started on the habits of some who like to use extensive CAPITALISATION to emphasise their POINT.

WHAT?

(I think that presses both your buttons )

 

[TheEmu]

That was an unintentional demonstration of the perils of autocorrect.

Hmmm...and the indefinite article?
25 Funny Auto Correct Fails | Dontpokethebear.com

 

[TheEmu]

Anyone with a simple way of getting "infer" and "imply" correct?

Speakers imply.
Listeners infer.

 

[burmans]

WHAT?

(I think that presses both your buttons )

Actually I was trying to be ironic, though irony is hard to convey in writing.

Personally I think pedantry can be a very unappealing attribute in an individual, even though I'm sometimes inclined to pedantry myself. How do I explain this contradiction, well here goes! I think language (including grammar) can be incredibly important, but language is a means to an end, not an end in itself, the desired outcome in my mind is clear and effective communication.

If bad grammar (or spelling/punctuation) affects the recipients ability to understand, then yes I'm down on it. But all too frequently pedantry extends to situations where all are well and truly aware of what is being said, the complaint is not material to the understanding.

 

[JessicaTam]

Speakers imply.
Listeners infer.

So you are implying that I need to infer something.

Thanks.

*files distinction away for future reference*

 

[AdMEL]

But wouldn't that imply there is more than one angel? For example, if we were talking the beings in the sky, we would say 'The Angel's pray' or, if there was more than one angel, it would be the 'The Angels' pray'. Given the band is called the Angels, shouldn't it be 'The Angels's song'? In my opinion, while it looks clumsy, the former (the Angels' song) suggests multiple angels.

Yes, it would imply that there is more than one angel, as there is more than one band member in 'The Angels'. 'The Angels' pray' is incorrect - it would be 'The Angels pray', as it is plural (no apostophe in the pural of an angel - see 1st link below), but not possessive. 'The Angels' song' is currently correct, as it is plural possessive (see 2nd link below), however I understand that this may just be an abbreviation of 'The Angels's song', with the second 's' dropped over time, for ease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural

What is the plural possessive form of angel

 

[JessicaTam]

I think the second 's' has has fallen away quite some time ago, and is no longer in common usage. The rule these days is to place the ' before the s for singular and after the s for plural if the s indicates plural.

This also occurs when the singular word ends in 's'.

e.g. Charles' wife not Charles's wife.