Grammar that makes you cringe

[Wowbagger]

I'm old enough to have been very irritated when I first saw the word "flammable".

Inflammable comes from the verb to inflame. No doubt someone will be along in a moment to correct me, but the only verb "to flame" that I know is for a large group to shout down an individual by electronic means.

[rower40]

In Ireland, 2d is pronounced "Two-penny", not "tuppenny".  As my father found out to his cost when teased about his pronunciation on coming to England in the '40s.

Yes, I am a second-generation economic migrant.  To be sure.

[rafletcher]

But actually the usage of not pluralising units of currency is defensible and regular. You don't dig in your pocket for twenty quids.
[/quote]

But you would for twenty pounds. Or the same quantity of dollars.  But then the British would say "Five Francs" whereas the French would say "cinq Franc" and the Germans "funf Mark"  - well they would have, and now would use Euro not Euros - which is perhaps why the Irish follow suit.

[Pete]

I'm old enough to have been very irritated when I first saw the word "flammable".

Probably influenced by the fact that the word is prominently emblazoned across the back of the truck in the film Duel.

whereas the French would say "cinq Franc" and the Germans "funf Mark"

Maybe, but I think the French would be written "cinq Francs" but of course the 's' is silent, so it would sound like what you wrote.  As for the German, I think the plural of "Mark" is just "Mark", as with many German words which have no distinct plural ending.

[Tom B]

But actually the usage of not pluralising units of currency is defensible and regular

And standard in many parts of N England and quite possibly elsewhere

[Wowbagger]

I'm old enough to have been very irritated when I first saw the word "flammable".

Probably influenced by the fact that the word is prominently emblazoned across the back of the truck in the film Duel.

I reckon I first noticed it in the mid 1960s. "Duel" was made in 1971.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

I've started documenting the bits of bad grammar I see (yes, yes, I know, my anorak is just over there...)

[Salvatore]

I'm old enough to have been very irritated when I first saw the word "flammable".

Probably influenced by the fact that the word is prominently emblazoned across the back of the truck in the film Duel.

I reckon I first noticed it in the mid 1960s. "Duel" was made in 1971.

The OED's earliest citation for 'flammable' is from 1813.

[rower40]

In contradiction to PolarBear on page 1 of this thread:

You, blackpuddinonabike, are Lyne Truss AICMFP.

The Greengrocer's apostrophe is a pet hate of mine too.

[Regulator]

I've started documenting the bits of bad grammar I see (yes, yes, I know, my anorak is just over there...)

You should go into the shop and enquire (as the sign say's) "iPod's what?"

[Pete]

They only have one iPod, and it is available.  Or maybe "iPod" is the name of one of the young ladies of the establishment?

You should go into the shop and enquire (as the sign say's) "iPod's what?"

Ahem.

[peterh]

I've started documenting the bits of bad grammar I see (yes, yes, I know, my anorak is just over there...)

You can use this if you want to 

[rower40]

[uber-pedant]
Technically, "Rank for 2 Taxi's" could be treated as correct.  The apostrophe indicates missing letters, because the sign is not big enough for

"Rank for 2 Taxicabs"

[/uber-pedant]
How do we find out if the sign-writer was thinking that when he wrote it? Or if he just thought "Oh - plural ending in a vowel, must put squiggle in!"?

[geraldc]

If they are referring to iPod as a brand, then it's correct.

E.g. 'Coke is available here', would be contracted to 'Coke's available here'.

If you were referring to iPods plural, it would be 'iPods are available here'.

[drossall]

Ah but that goes back to an earlier point. iPods are discrete units. Coke isn't. You have fewer iPods and less Coke

Therefore you can't entirely compare them.

[Cudzoziemiec]

In India for example the people I have worked with follow, speak and spell the American English way.

The people I work with, and everyone I speak to, in India, uses Indian English. It's definitely neither British nor American in grammar, syntax, vocabulary (obviously), or spelling. Nor in pragmatics come to that. However, most of the spelling used in official sources (government publications etc) is more British than American.

As for grammar that grates, but I nevertheless find increasingly acceptable, a new newspaper is being advertised with the slogan "Less words, more news".

In the context of cycling forums it makes me twinge - but not cringe - to see brake/break and pedal/peddle confused, even though the meaning is (so far at least) always clear.

[rogerzilla]

The CTC sent me some junk mail yesterday telling me I could get my first three month's insurance free 

[hellymedic]

The CTC sent me some junk mail yesterday telling me I could get my first three month's insurance free 

Veering OT
I received that yesterday too and it made me VERY ANGRY!

[Legs]

[uber-pedant]
Technically, "Rank for 2 Taxi's" could be treated as correct.  The apostrophe indicates missing letters, because the sign is not big enough for

"Rank for 2 Taxicabs"

[/uber-pedant]
How do we find out if the sign-writer was thinking that when he wrote it? Or if he just thought "Oh - plural ending in a vowel, must put squiggle in!"?

I've sometimes thought that photo's is defensible for the same reason.

One thing I've noticed increasing markedly is people using brought as if it were the past participle of to buy.  What's that about?

[rower40]

One thing I've noticed increasing markedly is people using brought as if it were the past participle of to buy.  What's that about?

Not enough bring and buy sales any more!  Or are they bling and bry?

[tonycollinet]

I tried to read the whole thread - I really did. But then I felt my will to live slowly slipping away.

So if this has already been said - sorry. But not very sorry.

As my A level English student daughter delights in telling me whenever I correct her garmmar:

English is a living breathing language, in a constant state of evolution. What is correct usage now, was not previously, and what is not now, will be in the future. The process of "Regularisation" (through which exceptions to grammatical rules will be eliminated) will continue, and popular usage will become "correct" usage.

It is quite likely S's will be replaced with Z's in some cases in the future - due to popular usage initiated on line.

Lolspeak anyone?
 

[rogerzilla]

As my A level English student daughter delights in telling me whenever I correct her garmmar:

English is a living breathing language, in a constant state of evolution. What is correct usage now, was not previously, and what is not now, will be in the future. The process of "Regularisation" (through which exceptions to grammatical rules will be eliminated) will continue, and popular usage will become "correct" usage.

That's the usual excuse from those who can't do it properly  

"A" Level English always used to be more about literature than technical accuracy anyway.

Back on topic, I found myself very, very slightly irritated by one of my daughter's books, where the main character complains "I wish my cat was exciting."

[drossall]

I'm inclined to agree. Some of the modern variations break rules, thus complicating things and creating exceptions.

An obvious and older example is "attendee". Normally, an "ee" is the indirect object of an action and the "er" or "or" is the actor. For example, that's how we know the difference between a lessor and a lessee, and a referee is the person to whom disputes are referred. Thus, an attendee is the object of the attentions of an attendant, and cannot be someone who goes to a meeting. Breaking such rules makes English harder, not easier.

As my A level English student daughter delights in telling me whenever I correct her garmmar:

And when you correct spelling her?

...due to popular usage initiated on line.

Should be "owing to"

[tonycollinet]

Hmm

That's not spelling - that is a clear typo.

[drossall]

Yes, of course it is. I never thought otherwise. I'm sorry, it's just funny sometimes that the word in which we make a typo is so well-chosen. If you're talking about English, then after actually mis-spelling the word "spelling", mis-spelling "grammar" is the one.

But maybe it's just my sense of humour. I'll go off and sit in the corner for a bit