How important is it to 'get it right'?

[boodles]

All of which raises...

 

You might well have brought something you bought, mightn't you?

Brought being the past tense of bring and bought being the past tense of buy. I might ask you to buy something and bring it with you, so when you get to where I am you have brought something you bought.

'Done' is correct if you say, "I have done it." But usually you will say, "I did it."

.

'Brought' can be a past participle or the past tense. In your example, I think 'brought' is being used as the past participle because it is after the verb 'have'.   'Have + past participle' is called the present perfect.

 

I read an article the other day that had a lot of these same common mistakes. It's always good to brush up on grammar skills!

Edited December 18, 2014 by boodles

[RaymondG]

Thanks for the note, Loraine...

As I stated before, my level of education and the sheer number of years since I went to school mean that I'm no longer able to categorically state things like that. I am looking at usage, something that became well-ingrained in me many years ago and leads me to wince when I see things done incorrectly.

I hope you're not too high there in Mexico?

[boodles]

I had to look it up even though I teach ESL and that is a very basic verb construction! I always say that formal education, though useful, is not as important as being able to look things up and find the answers. At least in my case. By the way, I did want to say you write very nicely. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by being "high" in Mexico? Do you mean close to the U.S. border?

[RaymondG]

No, but at a high altitude?

My recent visit to Pikes Peak in Colorado introduced me to altitude sickness and made me wonder about Mexico as I know Mexico City is at a high altitude.

Thank you for your nice comments. As for 'looking it up' I don't think I'd even know where to look for this kind of stuff other than in the bracketed abbreviations in the better dictionaries. But I am a great believer in knowing where to look or who to ask when you need the right answers.

As we move along, back onto the topic, Here is one that is very important in the Truth:

Psalm or Psalms

Oh dear, have you ever heard how this sounds from the platform when someone makes a mistake?

There is a book in the bible, and we all know it well, the book of the Psalms. Within that book there are 150 Psalms, none of which are divided into chapters, Not even the very lengthy Psalm 119.

So when you are referring to a verse in the Psalms, it is not correct to say Psalms 37:29, it is Psalm 37:29. It is not correct to refer to "Psalms chapter 37 verse 29," it is "Psalm 37 verse 29".

The Psalms are a unique part of the bible and this is another way in which they are unique...

[RaymondG]

Nobody's taken up the 'moot' offer yet...

Lead,Lead and Led

I see this frequently...

"One thing lead to another and..."

Need I say, this is wrong?

Lead, if pronounced with a soft 'e' (as in 'fetch' or 'hedge' or 'met'), is a very heavy metal that has some poisonous characteristics.

If you want to be correct, you write: "One thing led to another and...". The led here being the past tense of lead, pronounced with a hard 'e' as in 'beach' or 'teach' or 'weed'.

So you can lead a horse to water, after which you have led the horse to its drinking trough.

[boodles]

The last word "trough" caught my eye because the pronunciation of "gh" can vary so much. Words like slough [w], cough [f], bought [silent], spaghetti [g].

[MzT]

My current fight with my electronic devices is over:  to, too and two and its love of using ATE when I type ARE.

 

So, while I know and understand the differences between all of those words my device has lovingly decided to intermittently using another form in its place.

 

So my text to my pioneer bestie should read:

 

"Where are you?"

 

She receives - "Where ate you?"

 

or

 

"Where too next?" instead of "where to next?"

Edited December 20, 2014 by MzT

[RaymondG]

But does it give you defiantly when you want definitely?

Is that a fair excuse for that one?

[RaymondG]

Oh, I had a good experience at the meeting today...

The speaker was very precise in his talk, no problems with Psalm or Psalms, he used very good English generally.

And then the Watchtower had a good turn of phrase included in one paragraph.

A couple who served in a small Bethel family in Central America were asked to join a Bethel family almost 30 times as large in Mexico.

Great! They didn't write '30 times larger than', as is so common.

** times larger than is a phrase giving an incalculable figure. It makes no sense when you get down to analysing it, it's another pet hate of mine.

[Brother_Bliss]

There is such a word, even has a definition.

Kind of falls into the same category as 'aint'.

Aint is not considered proper English no matter what you brung.

 

Among the older generation this is true. I remember being told "ain't is not a real word" and us school children saying in jest "Ain't ain't a word and I ain't gonna say it"

 

But ain't is in the dictionary now, and it's usage is becoming both commonplace in journalism and speech even among the educated and acceptable as a universal conjunction for "am not, are not, is not".

[Brother_Bliss]

And then the Watchtower had a good turn of phrase included in one paragraph.

Great! They didn't write '30 times larger than', as is so common.

** times larger than is a phrase giving an incalculable figure. It makes no sense when you get down to analysing it, it's another pet hate of mine.

 

This would come down to what number they were actually trying to express. 

 

"30 times as large" is 30 * C = M, that is, Mexico is 30 times the size of Central America.

 

"30 times larger than" is 31 * C = M, that is, Mexico is 30 times larger than plus the size of Central America combined.

(This could alternatively be expressed as 30 * C + C = M)

 

So it's non an incalculable figure at all, especially if we have values for either C or M.  

[kejedo]

Hi,my certifications are Math, English, Social Studies, Adult Ed, Literacy, and ESL. I teach five high school subjects in the mornings and ESL in the afternoons. Many of my students have learned incorrect grammar in elementary school and have a difficult time changing. Here's some interesting ones: Which is correct when asked, "How are you?" Is it "I am well," or "I am good?" Actually, each answer is acceptable. 'Am' is a linking verb and can connect with either 'good' or 'well.' On the other hand, it is correct to say, "I run well," but incorrect to say, "I run good."

Many have strong feelings about whether it is correct to say, "I asked him a question," or "I aksed him a question." Once again, they are both correct, and always have been. Both pronunciations co-developed. In Britain it is 50/50 and in the US it is also 50/50. One can also use the spelling 'axe' to mean 'inquire.' Even when it is spelled 'ask,' it is correct to pronounce it as 'aks'. There are quite a few differences in British English compared to North American English, but I teach in the USA. Yes, "It is I," is correct. "It is me," is incorrect, but generally used in informal conversation. The correct form should be used in writing. 

[kejedo]

I am not sure if this has been answered. 'Who' is used as a subject; 'whom' is used as an object. In the hackneyed greeting: To whom it may concern, 'whom' is the object of the preposition. It can also be the object of the sentence.

[RaymondG]

Originally posted by Dismal_Bliss

This would come down to what number they were actually trying to express. 

 

"30 times as large" is 30 * C = M, that is, Mexico is 30 times the size of Central America.

 

"30 times larger than" is 31 * C = M, that is, Mexico is 30 times larger than plus the size of Central America combined.

(This could alternatively be expressed as 30 * C + C = M)

 

So it's non an incalculable figure at all, especially if we have values for either C or M.

Even if that simplistic approach was correct, it's still leading to the wrong answer...

If the purpose is to say that the size of one is 30 times that of the other, then your calculation shows it to be out. However, what if it were assumed that it was a progressive calculation, a compounding figure?

Let's face it, the whole thing is just wrong.

Pauline, it was explained previously, but your explanation is simpler to understand.

[kejedo]

Here are the nine common pronunciations of words with 'ough.' A rough-coated, dough-faced, thoughtful ploughman strode through the streets of Scarborough; after falling into a slough, he coughed and

hic-coughed. Some profess to know 10 ways to pronounce this suffix (letter grouping), but include an obsolete Irish word substitution for Loch (lough). 

[kejedo]

Regarding already did it vs already done it: I already did it is correct. Done needs the helping verb have (perfect tense).I have already done it is correct.

[kejedo]

In my teaching experience (actually almost 40 years teaching and counseling, unless one counts that I have been tutoring math since age 7), the word most frequently used incorrectly is 'their'. Not just 'there,' 'their,' and 'they're,' but in using their (plural) in a sentence that has a singular antecedent (word it refers to). Ex: everyone, anybody, and somebody are always considered singular.  "Everyone brought their raincoat." = incorrect. "Everyone brought his or her raincoat." = correct. 

[Brother_Bliss]

Even if that simplistic approach was correct,

 

It is correct. In fact, it's elementary, my dear Watson

 

it's still leading to the wrong answer...

 

What answer? What are we answering? We're just talking about grammar with reference to the statement in today's Watchtower.

 

If the purpose is to say that the size of one is 30 times that of the other, then your calculation shows it to be out. However, what if it were assumed that it was a progressive calculation, a compounding figure?

Let's face it, the whole thing is just wrong.

 

What is wrong?

 

You said "If the purpose is to say that the size of one is 30 times that of the other" <-- that's what the article did when it said "A couple who served in a small Bethel family in Central America were asked to join a Bethel family almost 30 times as large in Mexico." In other words, 30 * C = M where C is Central America and M is Mexico.

 

You then said "However, what if it were assumed that it was a progressive calculation, a compounding figure?" <-- then the article would have said "were asked to join a Bethel family almost 30 times larger than the one in Mexico". In other words, 30 * C + C = M where C is Central America and M is Mexico. 

 

For clarity, let's assume Central America had 25 among the Bethel Family. A group 30 times as large is 750. But a group 30 times larger than it is 775. This could also be expressed as 31 * C = M, because you have to take the original group, and add a figure 30 times it's size to it.

 

The former expression is much simpler to understand, so I understand why the latter would be a pet peeve of yours. The authors no doubt picked the expression that most easily conveys the thought. In fact, they probably did something like M/C=30 (ish) to come up with the figure and subsequent sentence construction.

 

My only point in this, is that you said the latter expression equals an incalculable figure, but that isn't true. A good math student will keep a careful eye on such expressions as it could mean a right or wrong answer on an exam ;)

[kejedo]

P.S. I am not a grammar snob. I have to correct my students' (plural and possessive) written grammar so that they can pass their High School Exam.I generally don't correct them in casual conversation and never correct anyone outside of the classroom. Our literature is very well written, in both grammar and content. 

[RaymondG]

Originally posted by Dismal_Bliss

.....You then said "However, what if it were assumed that it was a progressive calculation, a compounding figure?" <-- then the article would have said "were asked to join a Bethel family almost 30 times larger than the one in Mexico". In other words, 30 * C + C = M where C is Central America and M is Mexico.....

When I made that statement I was no longer talking about the Watchtower article, it simply doesn't apply.

 

.....My only point in this, is that you said the latter expression equals an incalculable figure, but that isn't true. A good math student will keep a careful eye on such expressions as it could mean a right or wrong answer on an exam .

In a way you are right, but it is at the very least misleading (or maybe even deceptive) to use '*** times larger than' for the very reason that your calculations have shown.

And in my mind, however, it leaves room for other issues as I've mentioned.

.

Edited December 22, 2014 by RaymondG

[kejedo]

Some etymologists would rename this thread - How important is it to get it correctly? Although right and correct(ly) are sometimes interchangeable, some editors would choose correctly. Many students of etymology conclude that English words of French origin are often considered to be more technical, thus "correct"(F) carries a more definitive implication. Whereas words from the Old English are considered to be more emotional (and therefore found more often in poetry) thus "right"(OE) is more often used to imply opinion. Just a thought.

[RaymondG]

Oh dear...

We are struggling here!

[kejedo]

Oh, sorry, I have no intention of making anyone struggle. Please remove anything I have posted that may seem confrontational in any way. I am definitely not a confrontational person. 

[Brother_Bliss]

When I made that statement I was no longer talking about the Watchtower article, it simply doesn't apply.

Oh but it does. Since we started with that as an example, it still serves as a good illustration throughout.

 

If we weren't talking about the WT (or an expression based on it), what were we talking about?

 

 

And then the Watchtower had a good turn of phrase included in one paragraph.

 

.                         A couple who served in a small Bethel family in Central America were asked to join a Bethel family almost 30 times as large in Mexico.

Great! They didn't write '30 times larger than', as is so common.

** times larger than is a phrase giving an incalculable figure. It makes no sense when you get down to analysing it, it's another pet hate of mine.

 

^ Watchtower.

 

If the purpose is to say that the size of one is 30 times that of the other, then your calculation shows it to be out. However, what if it were assumed that it was a progressive calculation, a compounding figure? 

 

^ Watchtower (based)

 

In a way you are right, but it is at the very least misleading (or maybe even deceptive) to use '*** times larger than' for the very reason that your calculations have shown.

 

And in my mind, however, it leaves room for other issues as I've mentioned.

 

It's only misleading, because when most people hear the latter they think the former. But this thread is about getting it correct, so it's good to illustrate the difference, especially since you brought it up.

 

What issues did you mention that this leaves though? Im confused.

[kejedo]

Dear Brother Raymond G. I enjoyed your comment on 'Have a nice day.' Too many direct orders have slid into our lazy lingo. When someone says, "Feel better," it sounds a bit too commanding. "I hope you feel better soon," has a more pleasant sound imho.