The internet is destroying grammar

[Gokul43201]

Until I joined PF I was under the impression that 'fora' is the correct plural of 'forum'. Through a discussion I had with matt grime, I've come to learn that 'forums' is commonly used and is definitely acceptable.

Moonbear, I too have been spelling words like 'traveled', 'traveler' and 'labeled' as 'travelled', 'traveller' and 'labelled' for the longest time; until MS Word shocked me with a squiggly, red underline. Apparently, this is another "simplification" invented by Americans, and the 'double-consonanted-spellings' are still good in British English.

I get the feeling that dictionaries and atlases are going extinct in the US.

 

[Njorl]

I had my own private grammatical crusade in high school. It concerned participles and passive verbs. Participles are verbal forms used as adjectives. In the sentence, "Catch the falling plate.", falling is a participle. It is used as an adjective, not a verb. This is true when the verb of the sentence is active, like "Catch". For some strange reason, when the verb of the sentence is passive, the participle is no longer considered an adjective. It is now part of the verb. This is nonsense.

For example.

In these sentences:

1. Catch the falling plate.
2. The plate is falling.
3. The plate is blue.

In 1, "falling" is an adjective, In 2, "falling" is part of the verb. In 3, "blue" is an adjective. This is irrational. In sentences 2 and 3, "falling" and "blue" fulfill exactly the same part of speech. They are adjectives just like "falling" in sentence 1. I am right. The entire heirarchy of grammar gurus are wrong. I will go to my grave thinking this and have it engraved on my tombstone.

Um...

Thank you for your time.
Njorl

 

[quantumdude]

generic[/I], so although the sentence "for those members who are so picky" would be the preferable choice, saying "for those members that are so picky" is also correct.

So chroot is generic? :surprise:

If I said "for those members, like Tom, who are so picky" who is the only correct answer.

*cough* That would be "for those members, such as Tom, who are so picky."

"Like" is for comparison between two subjects. "Such as" is for citing an example of a subject from a larger class.

 

[Evo]

So chroot is generic? :surprise:

Heheh, I KNEW you would say something about that. Well, chroot is a joke, inserted like a "subliminal" suggestion, and not considered by me to be part of the sentence. (fears Tom's superior grammar abilities) :shy:

*cough* That would be "for those members, such as Tom, who are so picky."

"Like" is for comparison between two subjects. "Such as" is for citing an example of a subject from a larger class.

I have no defense. I blew it. Not only is my spelling going down the drain, so is my grammar. Soon I will be typing "could of".

 

[quantumdude]

Ha Ha

Don't feel bad, the only reason I notice this stuff is that I used to teach test prep courses for The Princeton Review (SAT/GRE/GMAT). "Like" vs. "Such as" is a favorite trap of ETS (Educational Testing Service).

 

[Artman]

I know it's risky for me to join in a thread on grammer, but here goes...

Grammer and proper spelling are merely tools to help us to be understood. It is frequently necessary to bend or break the rules to achieve the feeling you want your sentence to convey. For instance, a humourous story may be well served with a weak, meandering structure, while a business letter may work better with short sentences or even fragments of sentences. And in creative writing, anything goes.

 

[BobG]

I realize we are having fun with misspellings, but your butchering of the word "Hemi" hurts my eyes.

John, John, John

Obviously, you need an education: http://www.sphere.bc.ca/test/hemmi.html

As to travelling/traveling: both have been considered acceptable as long as I can remember (I imagine only the single consonant will be acceptable by the time I forget). The double consonant is the more common form. I have no idea how Microsoft decided the single consonant was the 'correct' form - maybe it's an experiment to measure how much influence they have on America.

 

[The Bob]

"There is a thread where me () had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where () Gokul had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where Gokul and me/I had a discussion ..."

why does the addition of 'and' make you change want to change 'I' to 'me'?

There are plenty of other examples:
"My sister and I went shopping"
"I and my sister went shopping"
"Me and my sister went shopping"
"I went shopping"
"We - my sister and I/me - went shopping"
"My sister went shopping"

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Artman]

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

We all knew what he meant, so "me" and The Bob both think it doesn't really make that much difference.

However, in defense of those pushing for proper grammar (oops, just noticed I spelled grammar wrong in my previous post ), it does reflect on your level of education. It's okay to break the rules, but you should be able to show that you know them.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's two kinds of bad grammar :

1. Some split infinitives, colloquialisms, starting sentences with conjunctions, ending with prepositions, and others that a purist might frown upon.

2. Grammar that makes you (the average, educated, non-purist) wince when you read it.

 

[The Bob]

We all knew what he meant, so "me" and The Bob both think it doesn't really make that much difference.

Thanks

However, in defense of those pushing for proper grammar (oops, just noticed I spelled grammar wrong in my previous post ), it does reflect on your level of education. It's okay to break the rules, but you should be able to show that you know them.

Should it not be 'I spelt grammar wrong'? :tongue2:

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[BobG]

Thanks



Should it not be 'I spelt grammar wrong'? :tongue2:

The Bob (2004 ©)

Ounly in the UK or Australia. In American English, it's spelled 'spelled'. (But I did throw in a 'u' for you).

My sister and her husband lived in Italy for awhile and took language classes in Italian. Imagine their surprise when they found out they already knew the Italian word for zucchini (zucchini) and had never heard of the English word (courgette).

 

[cookiemonster]

Or maybe "I spelled 'grammar' wrongly"?

cookiemonster

 

[plover]

In these sentences:

1. Catch the falling plate.
2. The plate is falling.
3. The plate is blue.

In 1, "falling" is an adjective, In 2, "falling" is part of the verb. In 3, "blue" is an adjective. This is irrational. In sentences 2 and 3, "falling" and "blue" fulfill exactly the same part of speech. They are adjectives just like "falling" in sentence 1. I am right. The entire heirarchy of grammar gurus are wrong. I will go to my grave thinking this and have it engraved on my tombstone.

This is actually an artifact of English syntax. In many other languages the meaning conveyed by the English form "noun is verbing" is quite obviously a verb form. E.g. in French, "L'assiette tombe." can mean either "The plate falls." or "The plate is falling." "is falling" is the way English forms a certain verb tense (I think it's called the present progressive, but that might not be quite right). In Russian, there is no word used that corresponds to "is" the way it is used in either sentence in English, but in the translated equivalents "Plate falling" uses a verb, and "Plate -- blue" uses an adjective.

"is falling" is a verb phrase for the same reason "has fallen" is a verb phrase. For an example where English combines tenses that are separate in another language consider the sentences "The plate has fallen from the shelf." and "That plate has fallen from the shelf several times." In English, both sentences use "has fallen", but in French two different forms would be required.

You may go back to believing what you like now though. :tongue2: Far be it from me to interfere with anyone's dogmatic grammar foibles...

Points of grammar aside, in a few hundred years, when someone finds a tombstone reading "Catch the falling plate. The plate is falling. The plate is blue.", they're definitely going to decide the 21st century was weird...

 

[Moonbear]

I know it's risky for me to join in a thread on grammer, but here goes...

Grammer and proper spelling are merely tools to help us to be understood. It is frequently necessary to bend or break the rules to achieve the feeling you want your sentence to convey. For instance, a humourous story may be well served with a weak, meandering structure, while a business letter may work better with short sentences or even fragments of sentences. And in creative writing, anything goes.

For the most part, grammar rules serve to maintain clear meaning of sentences. Breaking the rules leads to ambiguity. In spoken language, it's easier to break the rules and still convey clear meaning because we have the assistance of inflection of voice. In written language, that inflection is absent, so one must rely solely on the grammatical structure.

I think all of this helps explain the popularity of the book "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves," which is pretty much a book of grammar with humorous examples of the ambiguities created by poor grammar.

 

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by Nereid
"There is a thread where me () had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where () Gokul had a discussion ..."
"There is a thread where Gokul and me/I had a discussion ..."

why does the addition of 'and' make you change want to change 'I' to 'me'?

There are plenty of other examples:
"My sister and I went shopping"
"I and my sister went shopping"
"Me and my sister went shopping"
"I went shopping"
"We - my sister and I/me - went shopping"
"My sister went shopping"

I didn't feel it made that much difference.

Sorry.

The Bob (2004 ©)

For the most part, grammar rules serve to maintain clear meaning of sentences.

If indeed there is a rule about 'I' or 'me' in these kinds of sentences, it would be one that doesn't serve to maintain clear meaning! :surprise:

 

[plover]

If indeed there is a rule about 'I' or 'me' in these kinds of sentences, it would be one that doesn't serve to maintain clear meaning! :surprise:

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The rule is quite straightforward: use a subject pronoun for the subject of a sentence; use an object pronoun for a direct object, indirect object, or object of a preposition.

"Me and my sister went shopping." is wrong because "me and my sister" is the subject of the sentence and "me" is an object pronoun.

As far as I can tell (speaking as someone who drove my parents berserk saying "me and x did something" all the time as a child ), the question here is:

Why are sentences like

• Me went shopping.
• Wilbert took I shopping.

obviously wrong, while sentences like

• Me and my sister went shopping.
• Wilbert took my sister and I shopping.

can seem ok even though exactly the same rule is being broken?​

It would seem to have something to do with the fact that the pronouns are farther from the verb in the sentences that sound ok. It could also be that the ok sentences rearrange more easily into correct sentences with the same meaning: e.g. "My sister went shopping with me." But I've never seen an explanation for this particular foible of English in any of the linguistics stuff I've read.

 

[Moonbear]

the question here is:

Why are sentences like

• Me went shopping.
• Wilbert took I shopping.

obviously wrong, while sentences like

• Me and my sister went shopping.
• Wilbert took my sister and I shopping.

can seem ok even though exactly the same rule is being broken?​

It would seem to have something to do with the fact that the pronouns are farther from the verb in the sentences that sound ok.

I think that's the likely explanation. I notice in my own writing that I'm more likely to make a mistake if the subject, verb and object of a sentence are farther apart than if they are close together. For example, if I include a clause in between subject and verb, I tend to mistakenly match the verb number to the subject in the clause than the subject that the verb is describing.

 

[The Bob]

Ounly in the UK or Australia. In American English, it's spelled 'spelled'. (But I did throw in a 'u' for you).

Awwww. Thanks

My sister and her husband lived in Italy for awhile and took language classes in Italian. Imagine their surprise when they found out they already knew the Italian word for zucchini (zucchini) and had never heard of the English word (courgette).

Zucchini, I have only hear that word on American TV shows. Otherwise I would not know what it was. Zucchini, what a funny word. :rofl:

This is actually an artifact of English syntax. In many other languages the meaning conveyed by the English form "noun is verbing" is quite obviously a verb form. E.g. in French, "L'assiette tombe." can mean either "The plate falls." or "The plate is falling." "is falling" is the way English forms a certain verb tense (I think it's called the present progressive, but that might not be quite right). In Russian, there is no word used that corresponds to "is" the way it is used in either sentence in English, but in the translated equivalents "Plate falling" uses a verb, and "Plate -- blue" uses an adjective.

This is why English is the 3rd hardest language to learn. That is why I like Russian. No 'the's or 'a's and once you have learned two words for all of the verbs (which are always almost the same anyway) then you know all the verbs and their variations. No changing the ending for different tenses or for different possesive pronouns.

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. Still like German though. Need to learn more of it.

 

[plover]

This is why English is the 3rd hardest language to learn. That is why I like Russian. No 'the's or 'a's and once you have learned two words for all of the verbs (which are always almost the same anyway) then you know all the verbs and their variations. No changing the ending for different tenses or for different possesive pronouns.

P.S. Still like German though. Need to learn more of it.

While English is certainly difficult to learn, I have trouble seeing the forming of tenses for regular verbs as one of the reasons. (Or am I misunderstanding the intent of your statement?) The English tense system isn't any more complex than that of French (or, I expect, that of German), and is certainly simpler than that of ancient Greek (and the actual conjugations of those tenses are, as a rule, much simpler in English). I've always thought of the complexity of English tenses as being about par for European languages. I agree that the Russian tense system is elegantly simple.

When you say English is the third most difficult language, against what field is it being rated? (e.g. Western European languages? languages with the current top 20 (or top 50) populations of native speakers?)

Euskara (Basque) is often considered the most difficult language in Europe. Though Hungarian has a reputation for being pretty fiendish too. Finnish and Turkish are also supposed to be difficult.

But how much of what makes a language 'difficult' is the comparison to the sort of language that one is familiar with? Many Native American languages don't even break up into words in a fashion that can be compared easily with European languages. (IIRC the technical term is that they are agglutinative languages.) Perhaps it is only because so few people learn them that they do not have a particular reputation for difficulty.

(BTW, the Euskara word for 'plover' is 'txirritxo' - pronounce 'tx' as English 'ch'. )

 

[The Bob]

While English is certainly difficult to learn, I have trouble seeing the forming of tenses for regular verbs as one of the reasons. (Or am I misunderstanding the intent of your statement?) The English tense system isn't any more complex than that of French (or, I expect, that of German), and is certainly simpler than that of ancient Greek (and the actual conjugations of those tenses are, as a rule, much simpler in English). I've always thought of the complexity of English tenses as being about par for European languages. I agree that the Russian tense system is elegantly simple.

My statement was simply compared to Russian. I have studied German and my dad speaks fluent French so I know from the lessons and time with him that they are the same (in retrospect). But thinking about it is should be easier. Let me think:

I play/ I am playing = Ich spiele
You play/ You are playing = Du spielst
He/She/It plays/ He/She/It is playing = Er/Sie/Es spielt
We play/ We are playing = Wir spielen
You play/ You are playing = Ihr spielt
They play/ They are playing = Sie spielen
You play/ You are playing = Sie spielen

As you can see, the German (and the French for that matter) use one set phrase to mean 3 different ones in english (can't think of the third off hand). However, in German (and French) you need to learn the endings to the regulars and irregualr verbs, not needed as much in english. Again, however, in German (and French) once learned they are the same for everything but in english they can vary. It is hard to say which language is the harder to learn but for the enormous number of words to learn, it has to be English, pure and simple.

Add tenses and it might change:

I ate = Ich habe gegessen
You ate = Du hast gegessen
He/She/It ate = Er/Sie/Es hat gegessen
We ate = Wir haben gegessen
You ate = Ihr hast gegessen
They ate = Sie haben gegessen
You ate = Sie haben gegessen

Here you can see that the ending to the english is the same but the german changes the auxilary verb. Normal but unnecessary in english.

When you say English is the third most difficult language, against what field is it being rated? (e.g. Western European languages? languages with the current top 20 (or top 50) populations of native speakers?)

Euskara (Basque) is often considered the most difficult language in Europe. Though Hungarian has a reputation for being pretty fiendish too. Finnish and Turkish are also supposed to be difficult.

Oh this was based on a conversation I had about 6 months ago with a friend (who read it somewhere, but I can't refer to it, sorry).

But how much of what makes a language 'difficult' is the comparison to the sort of language that one is familiar with? Many Native American languages don't even break up into words in a fashion that can be compared easily with European languages. (IIRC the technical term is that they are agglutinative languages.) Perhaps it is only because so few people learn them that they do not have a particular reputation for difficulty.

I don't think it is really possible to compare languages in anyway. They are all unique in someway that could make them seem harder. It is known, however, that a european is more likely to speak english than an englishmen to speak a european language. I like to say I break that rule.

(BTW, the Euskara word for 'plover' is 'txirritxo' - pronounce 'tx' as English 'ch'. )

Good for you. Glad you know that because I wouldn't have.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[plover]

As you can see, the German (and the French for that matter) use one set phrase to mean 3 different ones in english (can't think of the third off hand).

I don't remember ever being taught an explicit third meaning in French (though there will obviously be situations where other translations are smoother).

Also, as I pointed out above, there are also instances where English has one form where French has two. Plus French has a real subjunctive, whereas in English it is only vestigial.

How does the third "you" function in German? Is it ever syntactically distinguishable from "they", or just semantically?

However, in German (and French) you need to learn the endings to the regulars and irregualr verbs, not needed as much in english.

English certainly has its irregular verbs, e.g. sing, fly, lay, light, hang, etc. (these in addition to the usual suspects: be, have, give et al.) (and not to mention archaicisms like 'yclept').

Again, however, in German (and French) once learned they are the same for everything but in english they can vary.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

It is hard to say which language is the harder to learn but for the enormous number of words to learn, it has to be English, pure and simple.

English is a bizarre melange of linguistic elements. Start with a Germanic language, fold in a Romance language, stiffen with pedantic efforts to force the result into Latin grammatical patterns, finally add a dash of this and that from all the corners of a worldwide empire. Now try to get everyone else in the world to find this mess palatable...

As far as I'm aware, one of the things that saves German from being more difficult than it might be is that the language does not naturally pick up words from other languages in the way that English, Russian, and French, (also Japanese) do. (I.e. it creates those sequoia-sized compound words instead...)

I expect that overall English is more difficult than French or German. My point above was just about the tense system, and probably has no definitive answer anyway...

Oh this was based on a conversation I had about 6 months ago with a friend (who read it somewhere, but I can't refer to it, sorry).

Oh well...

I don't think it is really possible to compare languages in anyway. They are all unique in someway that could make them seem harder. It is known, however, that a european is more likely to speak english than an englishmen to speak a european language. I like to say I break that rule.

Well, I can at least read a European language (French, -- 1 1/2 if I count Russian, and when I was in Russia I could speak Russian better than I was ever really able to speak French). Not bad for an American... heh

Good for you. Glad you know that because I wouldn't have.

Aye, you know, sometimes I amaze even myself and all that...

 

[The Bob]

I don't remember ever being taught an explicit third meaning in French (though there will obviously be situations where other translations are smoother).

There is one because my dad goes on and on and on about it.

Also, as I pointed out above, there are also instances where English has one form where French has two. Plus French has a real subjunctive, whereas in English it is only vestigial.

I know but that is because we should really have the same. It simply saves time on trying to understand other people. There are good examples that I cannot think of off hand, again.

How does the third "you" function in German? Is it ever syntactically distinguishable from "they", or just semantically?

I will have to double check. If I forgot to post it here, PM me.

English certainly has its irregular verbs, e.g. sing, fly, lay, light, hang, etc. (these in addition to the usual suspects: be, have, give et al.) (and not to mention archaicisms like 'yclept').

Yes I see that but all you have to do is learn the changes e.g. sing to sung, lay to laid, light to lit etc. and then apply it. In German there are auxilary verbs to learn e.g. habe, hast, hat etc.

I ate = Ich habe gegessen
You ate = Du hast gegessen
He/She/It ate = Er/Sie/Es hat gegessen
We ate = Wir haben gegessen
You ate = Ihr hast gegessen
They ate = Sie haben gegessen
You ate = Sie haben gegessen

That is what I am saying.

English is a bizarre melange of linguistic elements. Start with a Germanic language, fold in a Romance language, stiffen with pedantic efforts to force the result into Latin grammatical patterns, finally add a dash of this and that from all the corners of a worldwide empire. Now try to get everyone else in the world to find this mess palatable...

As far as I'm aware, one of the things that saves German from being more difficult than it might be is that the language does not naturally pick up words from other languages in the way that English, Russian, and French, (also Japanese) do. (I.e. it creates those sequoia-sized compound words instead...)

I expect that overall English is more difficult than French or German. My point above was just about the tense system, and probably has no definitive answer anyway...

English is different in structure to most other languages making it bizarre.

Well, I can at least read a European language (French, -- 1 1/2 if I count Russian, and when I was in Russia I could speak Russian better than I was ever really able to speak French). Not bad for an American... heh

Aye, you know, sometimes I amaze even myself and all that...

Well to make my life story in languages short:
0 - 3 Years old: Learn French, fluent at end;
5 Years old: Forget French;
12 Years old: Learn German.

I understand spoken french, however, still but only spoken. I can speak 2 sentences of Russian and Greek. Also two words of Croatian and Dutch.

Well enough.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[pig]

Also two words of Croatian and Dutch.

What are the words in Croatian? That's where I'm from.

 

[zoobyshoe]

7. Be more or less specific.

This is my favorite. Sounds like something Yogi Berra would have said. He gave us:

"When you come to a fork in the road, TAKE IT!"

 

[The Bob]

What are the words in Croatian? That's where I'm from.

Skeuir Lanimgo

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh, I agree that the ambiguity is most likely what gets my feathers in a knot.

You may complain about ambiguity, affectively, but that won't effect any changes. The affect of ambiguity is happy-go-lucky. This effectively affects all of us here at PF. This is not just a notion I have affected. Affectation is not effective. The effects of an affected affect affect affective responses ([i.e.] they effectively affect the affect of those affected).

Affect aside, the ambiguity caused by confusing the words "affect" and "effect" can affect the clarity of expository prose in posts about physics. Consider: "Will that affect a change?" This might mean what it says or it might mean "Will this effect a change?" You can't really tell.
-------
The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary has a particularly long usage commentary for the transitive verb effect:

"usage The confusion of the verbs affect and effect is not only quite common but has a long history.Effect was used in place of ³affect as early as 1494 and in place of ²affect as early as 1652. If you think you want to use the verb effect but are not certain, check the definitions in this dictionary. The noun affect is sometimes mistakenly used for effect. Except when your topic is psychology, you will seldom need the noun affect."

The noun affect they are referring to is accented on the first syllable, and is primarily used in psychology and psychiatry to refer to emotion, or the outward appearance of emotion. A patient with a "blunted affect", for example, is one who seems pathologically lacking in emotion.

"The Edison Affect", therefore, would refer to the expression on Edison's face, not the thermiotic effect he discovered.

It was amusing when, once or twice, I've seen references to "the Edison affect", or "the Einstein affect".

 

[jimmy p]

Quote from Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist.

The law is a ass - a idiot.

Get the Grammar Gestapo on that.

 

[pig]

Skeuir Lanimgo

The Bob (2004 ©)

That's definitely not Croatian

 

[The Bob]

That's definitely not Croatian

Well a Croatian told me it was. Never mind.

The Bob (2004 ©)

 

[Prometheus]

The internet is destroying grammar.

Destroy is a value judgment, and one that I do not agree with. As well, I do not know why you cast blame on the Internet.

HUMOROUS GRAMMAR RULES

Some of these are still considered rules. Others remain rules only in the minds of prescriptive purists.

Hey! But I spelled acquaintance correct today

For example, the evolution of adverbs into adjectives, such as correctly into correct, is not the fault of the Internet. Neither is it the destruction of grammar.