Grammar that makes you cringe

[Guy]

We've just received the following in the Introductions thread in another place I go to. It's so wrong on so may levels, where does one start?

Hello everyone

I am a professional writer. Still I am working in a reputed writing company. We offer UK dissertation writing service, dissertation proposal writing service etc for students who have no idea about the writing rules and formatting. I am one among the trained professional writer and I used to read books and stay updated about the trends and changes in the writer's world.

best regards
steve smith

I don't know whether to  ,  or 

Whichever, it's all one big 

[citoyen]

Several times recently, I have heard the phrase "on a regular basis" being modified for emphasis, eg "on an extremely regular basis".

Now, I hate the phrase to start with - not only is it unnecessarily verbose*, it doesn't mean what people think it means.

Christmas happens "on an extremely regular basis". Halley's comet passes by the Earth "on an extremely regular basis".

If you mean "very often", why not say "very often"?

I am trying hard not to lose any sleep over this unimportant matter.


*ETA: yes, I know - verbosity implies lack of necessity

[meddyg]

Hello everyone

I am a professional writer. Still I am working in a reputed writing company. We offer UK dissertation writing service, dissertation proposal writing service etc for students who have no idea about the writing rules and formatting. I am one among the trained professional writer and I used to read books and stay updated about the trends and changes in the writer's world.

best regards
steve smith

You have brightened my day !
As a full time grammar Nazi, I will now enjoy sharing this with my long-suffering family.

[T42]

Hello everyone

I am a professional writer. Still I am working in a reputed writing company. We offer UK dissertation writing service, dissertation proposal writing service etc for students who have no idea about the writing rules and formatting. I am one among the trained professional writer and I used to read books and stay updated about the trends and changes in the writer's world.

best regards
steve smith

You have brightened my day !
As a full time grammar Nazi, I will now enjoy sharing this with my long-suffering family.

I ARE NOT A ROBOT. I ARE NOT A ROBOT. I ARE NOT A ROBOT. I ARE NOT A ROBOT.

[citoyen]

"I used to read books"

Priceless.

[hellymedic]

'I am still writing in a reputed writing company...'

Reputed to be a writing company; I am left to speculate about other rôles.

[Guy]

"We offer UK dissertation writing service, dissertation proposal writing service etc for students who have no idea about the writing rules and formatting"

A clear case of the blind leading the blind

"I am one among the trained professional writer.."

Ye-e-es [/Paxman]

[Tim Hall]

"I used to read books"

Priceless.

Reminds me of Mr. Heslop in Porridge. "I read a book once. Green it was."

[Jasmine]

Several times recently, I have heard the phrase "on a regular basis" being modified for emphasis, eg "on an extremely regular basis".

Now, I hate the phrase to start with - not only is it unnecessarily verbose*, it doesn't mean what people think it means.

Christmas happens "on an extremely regular basis". Halley's comet passes by the Earth "on an extremely regular basis".

If you mean "very often", why not say "very often"?

I am trying hard not to lose any sleep over this unimportant matter.


*ETA: yes, I know - verbosity implies lack of necessity

Ah yes.  Regular vs frequent. I am always surprised at how many people think these are interchangeable. 

My current cringe is 'myself' when used in the place of 'me'.  For example, "If you have further queries, please do not hesitate to contact myself," or "The people responsible are John and myself."  A few people at work use it, presumably because they think it is more formal. 

[citoyen]

Ah yes.  Regular vs frequent. I am always surprised at how many people think these are interchangeable. 

As a general principle, I don't have a problem with words changing their meaning. I know that English is not a dead language.

However, two things bother me about it. First, we already have a word that means frequent. Second, we no longer have a word that means regular.

It's inefficient use of language. Doubleplusungood.

See also: precise vs accurate

[ElyDave]

don't get me started on precise vs accurate vs uncertainty vs repeatability.  All metering terms that some of my clients sprinkle liberally about a conversation without understanding

[Cudzoziemiec]

Myself, yourself, etc as false formalities really grate on me, although this is really just a matter of style. Their misuse doesn't actually lose any meaning, unlike regular/frequent.

[Bledlow]

Ah yes.  Regular vs frequent. I am always surprised at how many people think these are interchangeable. 

As a general principle, I don't have a problem with words changing their meaning. I know that English is not a dead language.

However, two things bother me about it. First, we already have a word that means frequent. Second, we no longer have a word that means regular.

It's inefficient use of language. Doubleplusungood.

See also: precise vs accurate

Yeah, like deny & refute.

[Kim]

Myself, yourself, etc as false formalities really grate on me, although this is really just a matter of style.

They're the grammatical equivalent of pointy shoes on a mistake agent.

[red marley]

I'm not so sure precise / accurate represent a grammatical problem as such. In common useage when someone agrees with a point by exclaiming "precisely!", I think it implies they agree with its accuracy as much as its precision. But that is well established meaning and not particularly ambiguous.

In a more technical sense way too many people assume precision is a good substitute for accuracy (or at least I am 99.9% sure). I work with many engineers and they are often (68.4% of the time) the worst culprits. I think because they work so often with things where precision does reflect accuracy they forget that in most matters this is not possible.

[Pickled Onion]

Well, precision is a bit pointless without accuracy¹ but it's still quite a good idea to remember the difference. I currently work in a field where 10 or 12 digit precision is normal, and our calculations are required to be repeatable to that level, which I find hilarious² given that the underlying data is based on vague notions of what may or may not happen over the next ten or 25 years.



¹"The train will arrive at approximately 08:11"; "Give way in 274 metres"; etc.
²My old physics teacher would have put that rather more strongly.

[ElyDave]

My main problem is environmentalists that get involved in techy stuff, rather than leaving it to engineers.

The tend to conflate uncertainty i.e. +/- 2.5% with 95% confidence vs accurate to 2.5% or accurate to  1 m/s. And then we get into error vs uncertainty and I make their heads explode

[Bledlow]

I recall that railway stations in Sri Lanka used to (still do?) have their height above sea level given on signs - in exact multiples of 3.05 metres. 

Rather more precise than accurate, eh?

[T42]

Myself, yourself, etc as false formalities really grate on me, although this is really just a matter of style. Their misuse doesn't actually lose any meaning, unlike regular/frequent.

I wonder to what extent this usage isn't the result of lousy VOIP/cellphone quality. The "me" of e.g. "John and me" could well be swallowed up or fizzed over, whereas "myself" has a much better chance of being understood.

I suspect it's just affectation, though.

[Guy]

There is a world of difference in the meanings of "disinterested" and "uninterested".

Dolts who get this wrong should be tied to a plank, have their shoes and socks removed and the soles of their feet coated with salt, and then laid down in an enclosure containing goats.

gets on my tits

[Andrij]

In a previous role which involved managing changes to industry codes, a constant struggle was getting people to understand the difference between a vote of "Neutral" and "No Interest".  In our context, they were most definitely not the same thing.

[Guy]

Dunno about cringe. This, from another place, made I point and larffe

Maybe it's the historian and general heritage nutter in me but I always feel loathed to criticise money being spent on buildings which are of national importance...

[Legs]

Dunno about cringe. This, from another place, made I point and larffe

Maybe it's the historian and general heritage nutter in me but I always feel loathed to criticise money being spent on buildings which are of national importance...

In fairness, 'loath' is a very peculiar word.

[Nuncio]

There is a world of difference in the meanings of "disinterested" and "uninterested".

Dolts who get this wrong should be tied to a plank, have their shoes and socks removed and the soles of their feet coated with salt, and then laid down in an enclosure containing goats.

gets on my tits

I hesitate to call you a Canute, but I think that battle is lost. You're going to need a lot of planks, salt, and goats. (It's so prevalent that I was struck when I heard rugby commentator Brian Moore used it - 'disinterested'- in the traditional way yesterday when talking about the next Wales/Ireland game).

[citoyen]

I hesitate to call you a Canute, but I think that battle is lost.

I'd agree. Again, it's a shame to lose a useful distinction, but in most contexts it's clear that people mean uninterested when they say disinterested so I let it slide.

I'm just shocked to hear an example of a subject on which Brian Moore is not totally ignorant.