Grammar Discussions

[JessicaTam]

The underlined word is one that I am coming across more and more, albeit usually in sports journalism and commentary like below:



What's wrong with agreement?

But I googled 'agreeance' and found this:



So everything old is new again?

I think we are in agreeance.

 

[coco50]

The underlined word is one that I am coming across more and more, albeit usually in sports journalism and commentary like below:



What's wrong with agreement?

But I googled 'agreeance' and found this:



So everything old is new again?

To me the use of "agreeance" indicates a low degree of intelligence of the user. It is usually heard uttered by the chairperson of a meeting, thus: "All those in agreeance..." When I hear this I usually vote against the motion even if I am opposed to this course of action.

 

[Spongbob]

While not really a grammar issue, a media release from Olivia Wirth from Qantas Corporate Affairs had some odd expression: "It’s disappointing that some reporting zeroed in on this false premise of a CEO who went MIA, without checking the facts."

I had to read this a few times to understand the point. I think she means "focused" rather than "zeroed", and "MIA" means delayed?

 

[anat0l]

While not really a grammar issue, a media release from Olivia Wirth from Qantas Corporate Affairs had some odd expression: "It’s disappointing that some reporting zeroed in on this false premise of a CEO who went MIA, without checking the facts."

I had to read this a few times to understand the point. I think she means "focused" rather than "zeroed", and "MIA" means delayed?

MIA (pronounced "em eye ay") stands for "missing in action". I believe that's a military term; probably more a US thing and popularised by the movies.

"Zeroed in" rather than "focused" would seem to emphasise a narrow, exclusionary approach. That is, Wirth is saying that the media is basically only talking about AJ skipping the situation without a single iota of any other circumstances or considerations, whether in the initial sense or post facto in composing the report. There is an implication that the media had no other objective except to report on AJ in a poor disposition, and was prepared to be narrow minded or fact exclusionary to achieve that goal.

 

[Captain Halliday]

While not really a grammar issue, a media release from Olivia Wirth from Qantas Corporate Affairs had some odd expression: "It’s disappointing that some reporting zeroed in on this false premise of a CEO who went MIA, without checking the facts."

I had to read this a few times to understand the point. I think she means "focused" rather than "zeroed", and "MIA" means delayed?

Isn't MIA an airport in Florida? Surely on a FF forum and possibly to an airline the only acceptable use of MIA is in reference to the airport in Florida?

 

[andye]

Isn't MIA an airport in Florida? Surely on a FF forum and possibly to an airline the only acceptable use of MIA is in reference to the airport in Florida?

Or Waco Kungo airport for that matter

 

[Strategic Aviation]

Can 'literally' mean 'figuratively'? | OxfordWords blog

This newer, disputed usage (describing something non-literal, as a form of exaggeration) has become more frequent over time, and is now sometimes used quite deliberately in non-literal contexts. But literally has always been employed for added effect or emphasis. If you write, “the book is literally 500 pages”, the statement may be precise, but its precision doesn’t depend on the presence of the word literally; indeed the emphasis it adds may introduce doubt about the precision.

Whatever the reasons, it is clear that people often have strong opinions about “new” senses of words. Perhaps the question is not so much why do people have a problem with literally but rather why do lexicographers not have a problem? It comes down to that oft-spoke mantra – language changes. Our job is to document that for better or for worse. Except for us, there is no worse. We have to look at language objectively and dispassionately. Of course, part of our job is to give guidance on what might be acceptable when. That is why we label some words as slang and why we give a usage note at the offending sense of literally, making clear that although it is very common, it is considered irregular in standard English.

 

[Warks]

I love the correct, but unnecessary, use of 'literally' by George on Masterchef. He says things like "you literally boil the water" and so on. I'd like to see figurative boiling.

Modern usage (that evil thing) is now telling us that 'decimated' now can mean 'destroyed' rather than the destruction of 'only' 10%. Never! I won't have it!

 

[get me outta here]

I've noticed the 'decimated' problem for a long time. Also, almost everybody says uninterested when they mean disinterested. And, the irritating almost universal use of less than instead of fewer.

I love the correct, but unnecessary, use of 'literally' by George on Masterchef. He says things like "you literally boil the water" and so on. I'd like to see figurative boiling.

Modern usage (that evil thing) is now telling us that 'decimated' now can mean 'destroyed' rather than the destruction of 'only' 10%. Never! I won't have it!

 

[Warks]

This, in a Velocity email no less:

Plus, we’re giving away 1 million flybuys points! 100 runner-ups will each receive 10,000 flybuys points[SUP]*[/SUP]. So what are you waiting for?

I could take my brother-in-laws.

 

[Spongbob]

And I guess those who do not win the 10,000 points are runner-downs?

 

[Warks]

From news.com.au - a headline no less (or clickbait link)

51-year old Hurley’s envious bikini body

 

[codash1099]

Old grammar furphy illustrated:

 

[andye]

Old grammar furphy illustrated:

View attachment 89651

I always learnt "when the sound is ee"
However there are still a few which break that: protein probably the commonest

 

[JessicaTam]

I always learnt "when the sound is ee"
However there are still a few which break that: protein probably the commonest

Apparently there are more exceptions than not. Well according to QI, that is.

 

[anat0l]

The only food available is sushi and chips, and frankly that is unacceptable.

You can have a choice of egg and chips, or franks and beans.
You can have a choice of egg and chips; franks and beans; or scones and tea sandwiches.

Are all of the above sentences correctly punctuated?

The main emphasis here is on the use of commas and semicolons. In the case of the second two sentences, a difference in the use of those punctuation marks for slightly different lists.

P.S. The first sentence is meant to denote that there are two items - "sushi" and "chips" - not one item which is a sick amalgamation of both of those! Could the first sentence be rewritten to make that clean without significantly modifying the sentence?

Also, I suppose the first sentence could be clearer by eliminating the "and" after the comma and changing that comma to a semicolon (and adding a comma after "frankly")...

 

[Strategic Aviation]

Could the first sentence be rewritten to make that clean without significantly modifying the sentence?

"The only food available is sushi or chips, and frankly that is unacceptable."

Don't know how clean it is, but seems clear to me.

 

[anat0l]

"The only food available is sushi or chips, and frankly that is unacceptable."

Don't know how clean it is, but seems clear to me.

Yes... "clean"... wow, where did that come from...

 

[TheRealTMA]

"The only food available is sushi or chips, and frankly that is unacceptable."

Don't know how clean it is, but seems clear to me.

"The only food available is sushi and chips, and frankly that is unacceptable."​

Indicates that the sushi is served with chips. The use of the Oxford comma here is very appropriate. (GIYF) Although, personally, I wouldn't mind chips with sushi.

The other sentences with the semi-colon are incorrect.

 

[wandering_fred]

The only food available is sushi and chips, and frankly that is unacceptable.

You can have a choice of egg and chips, or franks and beans.
You can have a choice of egg and chips; franks and beans; or scones and tea sandwiches.

Are all of the above sentences correctly punctuated?

The main emphasis here is on the use of commas and semicolons. In the case of the second two sentences, a difference in the use of those punctuation marks for slightly different lists.

P.S. The first sentence is meant to denote that there are two items - "sushi" and "chips" - not one item which is a sick amalgamation of both of those! Could the first sentence be rewritten to make that clean without significantly modifying the sentence?

Also, I suppose the first sentence could be clearer by eliminating the "and" after the comma and changing that comma to a semicolon (and adding a comma after "frankly")...

And where are the first set of two sentences? (After all this is the grammar thread)

Happy wandering

Fred