Grammar that makes you cringe

[mattc]

What about the use of "education" where "training" is meant? Education tends to imbue broad, re-usable skills that can be applied in many areas. Training is more aimed at how to do specific tasks. Many companies now have "customer education" departments, when they mean "training". I'm not sure that "educating" customers that your product is best is appropriate; the word there is "indoctrination", surely?

I think this is a fair criticism, but it's typical of marketing speak ("previously cherished" 2nd hand cars anyone?).

Also I think it's too grey an area. Do we train doctors? Or educate them? And do schools not teach any specifics?

[I hadn't really thought about the education/indoctrination doublespeak thing before  - good observation. I shall think of this sinister overtone next time I see "customer education" !]

[Cudzoziemiec]

I don't think I've come across this "customer education" phrase. What's wrong with "customer information"?

[Cudzoziemiec]

How do you make a word like media possessive without talking Latin?

Apostrophe-S seems fine to me.

The different meanings have a common etymology so it would be consistent to use the same plural form for both... except that "media" for "more than one psychic" sounds utterly ridiculous. And sounding ridiculous for the sake of pedantic correctness is generally to be avoided.

It does and it is.

[drossall]

Do we train doctors? Or educate them? And do schools not teach any specifics?

I'd have said that we educate doctors in human biology, and then train them to conduct specific surgery, or whatever. And no, schools don't do much training, because they don't know their pupils' future careers.

I am not, however, arguing that it's very hard and fast. A lot of the time, someone would be using his, or her, training and education together, and it would be hard to say precisely which was which, any more than you can separate playing football from running - there are things that are clearly one or the other, and other things that are both.

[L CC]

I a'ssume it's becau'se it's the con'struction indu'stry we don't get literate emails?

Hello,
Employer's who's staff who may be required to use Abrasive Wheels during the course of their everyday duties are required to comply with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment regulation's (PUWER) to ensure that their staff are competent in the safe use of this hazardous piece of equipment

[HTFB]

I almost always treat data as plural to the extent I get surprised when someone else raises an eyebrow at my use of 'these data are...' etc. For me this is more than language pedantry. I deal with lots of data in my job and probably use the word 30+ times a day at work. I am usually discussing this in the context of how to process individual items within a dataset, and so it is handy to have a word that implies the plurality of the data. Whether or not there is more than one collection of data is often a moot point as this may be an arbitrary distinction based on file formats, collection organisation etc. So generally I have no need to make the distinction that Ian H refers to.

I still find myself referring to 'an item of data' rather than 'datum' when needing to reference the singular, but that is partly because in my line of work 'datum' is more commonly associated with a sea-level type benchmark for height measurements and geodesy.

Yes. Data are what scientists deal with. Data is what computer programmers deal with. The borderline between the two is a Sorites problem.

Datum for a singular piece of data is wrongy wrong wrong. Also, the plural of datum is datums.

[Kim]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26351494

[Cudzoziemiec]

Never mind the bridge collapsing, there's a grossers's apostrophe. How groce!

[pcolbeck]

It's not the apostrophe that is wrong but rather the rest of the sign. It should have read:

Road closed due to the fact that it's structurally unstable.

See no problem with apostrophe now

[drossall]

...owing to... 

I'm with Fowler, even if the author of this good summary has reservations. I'm one of the sad souls who get a judder inside when the "wrong" one is used.

You could say "Closure of road due to the fact that it's structurally unstable" (where the reference is to the noun "closure"), but "Road closed owing to the fact that it's structurally unstable" (where the reference is to the verb "close").

[Cudzoziemiec]

But road signs need to be read quickly and have limited space, so you end up with
"Closed because structurally unstable"
 

[drossall]

Oh yes, definitely, on a road sign, the shorter the better:

Closed - structurally unstable

But the original sign wasn't short, which is probably a worse problem than the greengrocer's apostrophe.

In fact, since you have to pause and consider what "structural instability" means in real terms, maybe "Weak bridge" or "Subsidence", depending on which section is actually at risk, might be better, if less precise.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Yes to the above!

Meanwhile:

[T42]

If they'd put "toyses" it would have been arch, but as it is it's just thick.

[hellymedic]

Formally/formerly - erk!

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/11046273.Synagogues_to_join_together/?ref=eb

[Pickled Onion]

It passes the spellcheck, it must be right! 

My submission for today, not so much the grammar*, but more for changing the laws of physics:

The Cube has 48 hours of battery life and powers a 16 lumen LED bulb for an arc of light of 15m in length.

* though the subject of the verb looks suspect, as does the "for".

[Auntie Helen]

The BBC News website again:

Glimpses of Prince George, seen here leaving hospital after his birth, are likely to be fleeing during the official tour

Caption on a picture from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26409594

[hellymedic]

Another  one for Lost Consonants, it would appear.
Peter Walker in the Guardian seems to have written 'nothing' when he meant 'noting' today.

[citoyen]

Saw a sign by some roadworks on Saturday's ride that made me think of this thread, would have stopped to take a pic but couldn't be bothered. The wording was:

"Slow down your speed"



Surely "reduce your speed" or "slow down your vehicle"? But "slow down your speed" just makes me itch.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Just "slow down" would have been enough. Short and unambiguous.

[citoyen]

Indeed.

Although that makes me think of Simon & Garfunkel.

[ian]

Saw a sign by some roadworks on Saturday's ride that made me think of this thread, would have stopped to take a pic but couldn't be bothered. The wording was:

"Slow down your speed"



Surely "reduce your speed" or "slow down your vehicle"? But "slow down your speed" just makes me itch.

Hmm, in a recent press release from our faulty marketing drones of subdeck 38G Section 554xb3 they used the line

'...accelerate the time to...'

I'm still not sure that entirely meant what they meant it to mean. They could have just reduced, of course. Mind you, they mostly just spark and emit entire gobbledygook and bad smells, so that's possibly an improvement.

[T42]

Seen on another forum: "I am loathed to throw them away...".

For some reason this reminds me of a chum who once said "...and they spurned on him".  I didn't have the courage to ask what he thought spurn meant.

Another one made me chuckle just now, in that organ of august scholarship History Today, no less: "...rather that illiciting a prickly denial of overlordship..."

[citoyen]

[Ian H]

Oh dear! Sentencing is obviously too good for them.