Grammar that makes you cringe

[Gandalf]

Not grammar, but I have noticed that even within these hallowed portals there is a trend of spelling the word 'lose' as 'loose'.  Please make it stop.

[eck]

Under way, or underway?

Two words, orone?
Does it really matter?

Disc uss.

[border-rider]

Not grammar, but I have noticed that even within these hallowed portals there is a trend of spelling the word 'lose' as 'loose'.  Please make it stop.

I must admit I have to consciously think about that one and I suspect I get it wrong from time to time.  I know perfectly well the correct usage at an intellectual level, but for some reason it's not as hard-wired into my language brain as it should be.

[Polar Bear]

Is there any harm in trying to do something the right way?

I appreciate your sentiment but, is there a right way?   

Rules evolved over time but human beings have communicated verbally for far longer, and, in many more varieties than the written languages portray.   Only last week I struggled to understand a local Orkney ferryman and yet his crew mate could understand every word.   Go to most corners of the UK, most regional housing estates, shopping centres, even schools and universities, and you'll find that the structure and use of words, phrases and punctuation differs from the codified set.     

As I understand it the rules are supposed to try and make it possible for example, for a Cornishman and a Shetlander to gain the same understanding.   However, even written English can be difficult to interpret as indicated by the fact that professions such as Law created extra rules to remove ambiguity within the profession.   

The rules do not reflect conversational English, the type of English used by many on this forum.   

Live and let live.

         

[Wendy]

Not grammar, but I have noticed that even within these hallowed portals there is a trend of spelling the word 'lose' as 'loose'.  Please make it stop.

Some of us may know the difference, even though occasionally using the wrong one due to slight dyslexia.

[border-rider]

I agree with the posters who've mentioned the diversity of spoken English and the space for people to express themselves and play with the rules, but isn't all that a different thing from people who just can't be bothered to put sentences together properly ?

Though that argument doesn't hold up against the evolution of language one, I suppose.

[mattc]

The rules do not reflect conversational English, the type of English used by many on this forum.   
         

Yes they do. Most of us deviate from the rules to some extent much of the time,but most of our words, and many of our sentences, stick to the rules.

If we didn't you would have gibberish.

[border-rider]

The rules do not reflect conversational English, the type of English used by many on this forum.   
         

Yes they do. Most of us deviate from the rules to some extent much of the time,but most of our words, and many of our sentences, stick to the rules.

If we didn't you would have gibberish.

I have seen posts (on other forums) where the language used plays so little heed to the rules that it's impossible to extract the meaning.  Not here though, I don't think.

[Manotea]

I agree with the posters who've mentioned the diversity of spoken English and the space for people to express themselves and play with the rules, but isn't all that a different thing from people who just can't be bothered to put sentences together properly ?

Though that argument doesn't hold up against the evolution of language one, I suppose.

I blame Australian Soaps (Neighbours & co).
 
Tracylene: "I went. To the shops. And bought some beans. And then I walked home. And I got wet.  Because it started. Raining."
All said with a dreaded rising inflection at the end of each fragment.

I've had strong words with the Mini Manoteas for 'not speaking in sentences' / thinking about what they were going to say before they said it. Thankfully they've grown out of it now.

Reactionary? Moi?

[iakobski]

Not grammar, but I have noticed that even within these hallowed portals there is a trend of spelling the word 'lose' as 'loose'.  Please make it stop.

With this and a few similar "errors" we are witnessing the changing of the language. On web pages and forums it is so often wrong it may well already be the majority. Now, when I see the word "lose" I get a mental jolt like when a word is wrong, then I realise it's actually correct. Even the BBC website regularly uses loose for lose and lead when they mean led.

Things like that won't be picked up by spellcheckers and they even follow spelling rules, just the wrong ones. If you make loose rhyme with choose then you're stuck when you want to say something is loose. It's an anomoly though, why doesn't lose rhyme with close?

[Riggers]

Or 'rough' with 'bough'. But that's an entirely different 'kettle of fish'.

"I'm going to have a row with my wife!"


"… but on the lake". What a pickle our language can snare us in type-thing.



Stop Rigby. Stop!

[Moloko]

"I'm going to have a row with my wife!"

Oops upside your head
I say oops upside your head.

[Flying_Monkey]

Association fallacy alert! 

I take it that that means that you don't agree?

There was nothing of substance to agree or disagree with. You tried to make an association with something that appears superficially similar but in fact has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I don't think there's a lot more to say on this thread anyway. It is now starting to repeat itself...

[Polar Bear]

The rules do not reflect conversational English, the type of English used by many on this forum.   
         

Yes they do. Most of us deviate from the rules to some extent much of the time,but most of our words, and many of our sentences, stick to the rules.

If we didn't you would have gibberish.

I'd suggest that the codification of language followed on from the spoken word and thus it is the codification which is limited in structure rather than the spoken word.  

[Ian H]

...If we didn't you would have gibberish.

I'd suggest that the codification of language followed on from the spoken word and thus it is the codification which is limited in structure rather than the spoken word.  

Perfect example!

[border-rider]

...If we didn't you would have gibberish.

I'd suggest that the codification of language followed on from the spoken word and thus it is the codification which is limited in structure rather than the spoken word. 

Perfect example!

Yes indeed.  Without the Oxford comma after "word" it makes no sense whatsoever

I'd suggest that the codification of language followed on from the spoken word, and thus it is the codification which is limited in structure rather than the spoken word. 

[Polar Bear]

Thanks chaps.   

[Jaded]

So we've got a choice between codification and cod-ification.  

[mattc]

Even the BBC website regularly uses loose for lose and lead when they mean led.

Things like that won't be picked up by spellcheckers and they even follow spelling rules, just the wrong ones.

I have no evidence, but I'm pretty sure spellcheckers are to blame for this.

Writers infer correctness because their spelling has been passed "OK".

[mattc]

So we've got a choice between ...

Ooh, ooh, there's another one!

I would prefer
"So we have a choice between ... "

[Thor]

So we've got a choice between ...

Ooh, ooh, there's another one!

I would prefer
"So we have a choice between ... "

Isn't "there's another one" tautological?  Since "there's" (there is) is singular?  So you could say "There's another." 

[border-rider]

Should it be:

We can choose between...?

[Jaded]

This thread is turning into one of extreme excellence! 

[Mr Larrington]

Twenty20 could be accused of being poor grammar: tautology.

An example of true tautology would be a two-wheeled bicycle. Change one element of that and you get an oxymoron, such as a three-wheeled bicycle or a two-wheeled trike. By contrast a Twenty or a Twenty30 would be not so much oxymoron as one-sided match

Oxymoron: spot cream for chavs.

[citoyen]

a Twenty30 would be not so much oxymoron as one-sided match

...or something to do with the Duckworth Lewis method.

d.