Grammar that makes you cringe

[mattc]

Nowt wrong with the grammar, thobut? </pedant>

[toontra]

Nowt wrong with the grammar, thobut? </pedant>

True 

Still makes me cringe though.  It's meaningless, a waste of words, purely for effect.  It's in the same league as "at the end of the day", but (as drossall says) also with a political slant because its intended to indicate that he is fully tuned in to public opinion, or actually speaking on their behalf.

In short, it's pure nonsense.  He should limit himself to one a week and no more.

[Wowbagger]

The alternative is "hard-working families", which Cameron uses a lot (but so do others). I've never met a hard-working family. If both parents work the kids are usually layabouts or delinquents. Personally, I've always thought that the best way to approach work is to avoid it as much as possible.

[toontra]

The alternative is "hard-working families", which Cameron uses a lot (but so do others).

Yes, that is the Tory equivalent, although not quite as absurd as it doesn't have the geographic connotations.

Labour would never use the term "hard-working" lest it alienate a large part of their core demographic.   

[HTFB]

... taking it's use to absurd new lengths ...

... because its intended to indicate ...

Ow again!

[Biggsy]

Rachel Riley:     

"Times it by seven"

[border-rider]

...also with a political slant...

Indeed.

[hellymedic]

Quote from Auntie's News Website:

<<Chris Weir says her and her husband Colin were "tickled pink" when they realised they had scooped Tuesday's jackpot.>>

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14161661

[mattc]

This should please Helen:

BBC News - Spelling mistakes 'cost millions' in lost online sales

[Ian H]

Quote from Auntie's News Website:

<<Chris Weir says her and her husband Colin were "tickled pink" when they realised they had scooped Tuesday's jackpot.>>

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14161661

If 'er was living down yer, 'er'd be perfectly c'rect.

[hellymedic]

Quote from Auntie's News Website:

<<Chris Weir says her and her husband Colin were "tickled pink" when they realised they had scooped Tuesday's jackpot.>>

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14161661

If 'er was living down yer, 'er'd be perfectly c'rect.

It would be foin in the Black Country. Largs is a long way off...

[Bledlow]

Over-exaggerated. 

[Exit Stage Left]

The use of 'that' in preference to 'which'. The sign of a weak will in the face of Word's grammar check.

[rower40]

The use of 'that' in preference to 'which'.

  I've been using Inglish wot she is rote for over 40 years.  I still haven't got my head around this one.

[Sergeant Pluck]

The use of 'that' in preference to 'which'.

  I've been using Inglish wot she is rote for over 40 years.  I still haven't got my head around this one.

Likewise 

[Exit Stage Left]

The use of 'that' in preference to 'which'.

  I've been using Inglish wot she is rote for over 40 years.  I still haven't got my head around this one.

Likewise 

Think of two sentences. 'Which is the car that cut you up? and 'Is that the car which cut you up'. You could say or write, 'Which is the car which cut you up?' and 'is that the car that cut you up'. Both work as well but I think that English seeks to avoid using two meanings of the same word in the same sentence, as repetition is bad style. So following Word's grammar you end up with nowhere to go if you always ditch which for that.

[iakobski]

In Amerian English there are a load of rules about that and which, which seem to boil down to "prefer 'that' if it still makes sense".

In British English, it doesn't matter, so we use which a bit more often:

In British English, writers and editors seldom observe the distinction between the two words.

Hence MS Word being a bit uptight about it.

[border-rider]

My little Collins book of English usage agrees with ESL that one would use that and which to taste, to avoid repetition in the same sentence. It also says that if the relative clause is between commas, one should use which:

The car, which I really didn't like, cost him an arm and a leg

[Wowbagger]

Someone once tried to correct me, suggesting that I should use "that" instead of "which" in a particular context, which I cannot remember.

I can now assume that he was an American, which means he was probably wrong.

[rower40]

I can now assume that he was an American, which means he was probably wrong.

ITYM

I can now assume that he was an American; that means he was probably wrong.

Srsly though; I seem to remember being told it was about the difference between "qualification" and "specification".

"Help yourself to sweets from the jar which is on the top shelf" - to specify WHICH jar you can nomm from.
"Help yourself to sweets from the jar that is on the top shelf" - there's only one jar, and the useful information tells you where it is.

I may have this completely picolax-exit-point about sweets-entry-point.

Anyone want to try to help us out here?

[citoyen]

Srsly though; I seem to remember being told it was about the difference between "qualification" and "specification".

That sounds about right. The grammatical terms for this are restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. Strictly, you should use "that" for restrictive (specifying) clauses and "which" for non-restrictive (qualifying) clauses.

But as already mentioned, few people observe the distinction and even fewer care. A shocking decline in standards. Broken Britain and all that.

"Help yourself to sweets from the jar which is on the top shelf" - to specify WHICH jar you can nomm from.
"Help yourself to sweets from the jar that is on the top shelf" - there's only one jar, and the useful information tells you where it is.

Yes, you were right - you've got these the wrong way round.

d.

[rower40]

^ Thanks.  I'll remember it now.
I owe you a pint.

[citoyen]

"Help yourself to sweets from the jar which is on the top shelf" - to specify WHICH jar you can nomm from.
"Help yourself to sweets from the jar that is on the top shelf" - there's only one jar, and the useful information tells you where it is.

Yes, you were right - you've got these the wrong way round.

Actually, on seconds thoughts, they're not the wrong way round exactly, but the distinction isn't very clear in your example...

"Help yourself to sweets from the jar, which is on the top shelf." - in this case, the non-restrictive clause "which is on the top shelf" is providing extra information that isn't strictly needed to identify the jar. "Help yourself to sweets from the jar. By the way, the jar is on the top shelf."

"Help yourself to sweets from the jar that is on the top shelf." - here the restrictive clause is telling you that you're allowed to take sweets from this jar but no other. It's called a restrictive clause because the extra information restricts the number of jars that you could possibly be talking about. "Help yourself to sweets from the jar that is on the top shelf but keep your grubby mitts off the jar that is on the bottom shelf."

But as per other answers, it's not a distinction that many people either understand or care about these days. You can use "which" or "that" interchangeably and people will understand you. Using the wrong one is unlikely to cause any ambiguity.

d.

[citoyen]

Think of two sentences. 'Which is the car that cut you up? and 'Is that the car which cut you up'. You could say or write, 'Which is the car which cut you up?' and 'is that the car that cut you up'. Both work as well...

I know they're just examples to illustrate a point but they're rather clunky constructions. "Which car cut you up?" would be a more elegant way to avoid repetition.

but I think that English seeks to avoid using two meanings of the same word in the same sentence, as repetition is bad style.

Avoiding repetition is a journalistic hang-up. It's not a rule to follow doggedly at all costs. Sometimes repetition is preferable to tortuous euphemism. Sports journalists are usually the worst offenders. Peter Crouch > the Spurs striker > the lanky frontman > the big number 9... 

d.

[Exit Stage Left]

Think of two sentences. 'Which is the car that cut you up? and 'Is that the car which cut you up'. You could say or write, 'Which is the car which cut you up?' and 'is that the car that cut you up'. Both work as well...

I know they're just examples to illustrate a point but they're rather clunky constructions. "Which car cut you up?" would be a more elegant way to avoid repetition.

but I think that English seeks to avoid using two meanings of the same word in the same sentence, as repetition is bad style.

 Avoiding repetition is a journalistic hang-up. It's not a rule to follow doggedly at all costs. Sometimes repetition is preferable to tortuous euphemism. Sports journalists are usually the worst offenders. Peter Crouch > the Spurs striker > the lanky frontman > the big number 9... 

d.

I know what you mean, in German it's a lot easier, repetition is not a style fault, but German is an inflected language, with many opportunities to distinguish between a cultivated and demotic form in terms of grammar. I'm quite keen on inversions and deliberate repetition, because journalistic conventions lend them power. Well they would if people cared about that sort of thing any more, which they don't, but I do, as it happens.