How important is it to 'get it right'?

[kejedo]

Chart 19 shows the rise and fall of the semicolon. For no grammatical reason, editors started to limit the use of the semicolon to separate two related independent clauses. I never jumped on this trend, and now it is reversing. Papua New Guinea has 800 languages. Our literature is available in whole or part in 600 hundred languages. Papua New Guinea also has the largest number of languages on the threshold of becoming extinct. 

[boodles]

Did you guys see this Weird Al video when it came out a few months ago?

 

[Musky]

[RaymondG]

Love the Weird Al clip, Loraine, that's a beauty...

It covers a lot of items very quickly, the people who need to learn from it will skip most of them. But it sure does give the message if they've had errors pointed out to them.

[kejedo]

Shut off the Weird Al Word Crimes @ 3:30

[Brother_Bliss]

Did you guys see this Weird Al video when it came out a few months ago?

 

LOL!

 

“You should never write words using numbers, unless you’re seven, or your name is Prince."

 

I literally lol'ed at that line

 

We should have "Marked Solved" enable in this forum just for that video. This whole discussion could be summed up by watching that instead of reading the posts

[RaymondG]

One common error that the video raised was that people say:

I could care less!

Which, as the video mentions, means that they do care. Once again, it shows that people don't think about what they say. Like saying "Hardly done by" instead of "Hard done by."

Another common expression that's changed over the years is "Slow as a wet week," which has been converted to "Slow as a wet weekend."

But I guess you'd have to have been around for a while to notice that this has happened...

[Brother_Bliss]

One common error that the video raised was that people say:

 

I could care less!

Which, as the video mentions, means that they do care. Once again, it shows that people don't think about what they say.

 

What happens is they hear an expression that has pretty much become an idiom, or figure of speech. I imagine that if someone were to put some thought into this one, they would think about how they "could actually care a little less" VS "could actually care a little more" and such an explanation would make sense, even though original express is/was "I couldn't care less [than the little I already do]".

 

It's such a common expression though, that nobody would actually be confused at all. You'd know exactly what they meant.

 

Like saying "Hardly done by" instead of "Hard done by."

Another common expression that's changed over the years is "Slow as a wet week," which has been converted to "Slow as a wet weekend."

But I guess you'd have to have been around for a while to notice that this has happened...

 

I have never heard of either of those (I'm 39, for the record).

 

My dad will tell a story starting with "many moons ago" lol. He also says "cool beans".

[RaymondG]

I see your problem now, Bob...

You're just too young!

I will refrain from adding in too many Australianisms...

[kejedo]

Weird Al has a video of palindromes that I have shown to my ESL students and asked them to try and figure out the construction. Don't stop with the Australianisms, please. I, for one, am profoundly impressed by figures of speech from all Countries. One time I wrote a (Jeapordy type) game board covering figures of speech.One category was  'Check up from the neck up' and the clue was "Make up your__________." My Student said,"face."    

[boodles]

Ha ha! I don't remember the palindrome video but my husband and I like to sing his version of 'Royals' every time we use aluminum foil. And I can't forget the 'White and Nerdy' song someone had for a ring tone. Anyway, he covered a lot of the common 'mistakes' made by native speakers in a funny way. I always laugh when it talks about writing like a spastic...

[Musky]

I like his star wars parody "Anikin guy"

[RaymondG]

I was talking to a woman yesterday, she mentioned she hated spelling mistakes... I pointed out one on the front page of The Australian where 'integral' had been typed out without the 'g'...

"The one thing I really hate," she told me, "is when people say 'prostrate' instead of 'prostate'."

I walked away, but on thinking about it I went back and told her I had the answer to that...

"What's that?" she asked.

"When you hear someone say that someone has 'prostrate' cancer," I said, "just tell them 'That makes me so sad! They won't be able to stand up for the treatment!'"

[Ahuvah]

There's  a difference between typos and spellos oh I mean spelling errors. Sometimes because I touch-type I know the spelling but fingers aren't connected to my brain very well. Hmmm ... come to think of it - my brain has too many disconnections but that's a subject for another thread.

 

I think I'm quite tolerant towards spelling errors and grammar in other people especially in an informal setting. I'm not tolerant at all in professional settings as in newspapers and other media. They are paid to proof-read or have proof-readers so they should be conveying the best professional persona they can.

 

One lady taught me a lot in reference to being tolerant towards others. (I'm harder on myself ). This wee lady unbeknown to us was deaf, but she would often start threads on a NZ trading forum and she would always type her words out as SHE thought they sounded. It often took a while to work out what she was saying until you got to know her unique way of typing.

 

A lot of secular misspellings or typing errors though are pure laziness or lack of education and I think too, with the younger generation the text language has a lot to answer for. Even when I text I try to text the whole word and not abbreviations.

 

I love words though and through this thread we can learn how to sculpt our feelings, views and opinions in a tasteful way that reflects our God Jehovah. That is what I'm loving about this forum already - even when we disagree on something it is done in such a respectful way. I'm very impressed.

[New World Explorer]

Here is one - some one vs someone and any one vs anyone ?

 

Someone refers to an unspecified member of a group of people. 

 

Some one refers to an unspecified member of a group of people that is being selected for individual attention

 

That really clears things up    

Regarding second point in Polish we would say Some oneski ......  Is this clear now ??? Anyoneski can start protesting ...NOW.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Gregexplore

[New World Explorer]

And now, I ask, what's your 'take' on this one?

Nobody seems to ever take anything anywhere any more... they say they are bringing it and it's wrong to do so.

It's a matter of location. You bring things with you or to where you are located. You take things elsewhere.

There are a multitude of variations on this theme. Let's say you are having a conversation on the phone while your spouse is talking to you about options on what's being arranged. You are talking about going to a friend's place for some reason.

You: "What do you want me to bring?"

Spouse: "Do we have to take something?"

Friend on phone: "Just bring yourselves!"

All of these are correct. In your part you are speaking as you will be there, hence 'bringing' something with you is about changing the location of that item to where you will be.

Your spouse is speaking from the point of view of being where you presently are and having to 'take' something with you. I think the friend's position is easily understood.

You get off the phone and say to your spouse, "I think we should take some sandwiches." Again correct, as you are talking about changing the location of the sandwiches from where you are to where they will be.

Folks, to say "I think we should bring some sandwiches." is WRONG. On the other hand, if the friend got off the phone and said, "I hope they bring some sandwiches." he would be correct because he is located at the place to which they will be taken.

'Bring' has become one of the most over-used or inaccurately used words in the language...

It's so nice of you to "bring" up this subject ! I will "take' valuable lessons from this ! (No seriously THANKS !)

Tha't why we have TAKE_AWAY food ..not BRING_AWAY ....  they bring take away food to us.    ( I wish I could understand English grammar )

[kejedo]

In a previous Watchtower, the word 'wreaked' was used. As an English teacher, I had always been taught that the past tense of wreak was wrought, but research proved our brothers to be correct. Also, we frequently hear, "Let's look at the article entitled........" For years, editors have been taught that entitled is only for someone who has a privilege, and the correct construction should be "Let's look at the article titled........." I did some research, and our brothers were correct again. (I may have mentioned this one before.) As an author, I was dismayed when my book was released with errors in it. I was informed that all books have typos, and from my teaching experience, that is true. I even have to go through math books for errors. I have yet to find one school book without typos. 

[RaymondG]

I would never have thought of 'wrought' as past tense of 'wreak'...

But I have a feeling it should be the past tense of something!

'Wright', perhaps?

[MizPeg]

I fear I have done Jonathan a disservice a few posts back...

I wrote in response to his post:

However, I've just noticed that Jonathan had written "...in ways that don't sound right." He was correct in that, I should have given a more complete example:

Nor is "It don't sound right." Or, perhaps, "Something don't sound right." In both cases 'doesn't' is the appropriate word.

Ray, if you had posted the contraction for those, it would have simplified the whole matter.

          doesn't : does not.           don't : do not.

Put that particular sentence in print, then see which soumds more reasonable.

I better just hush up.  

[kejedo]

As used in the1800s  and earlier,'wreak' simply meant cause, make, or inflict.  Its most common past tense 'wrought' lent its name to wrought iron. Samuel Morse sent his first message in dots and dashes, "What hath God wrought?" In our day, since it is primarily coupled with words like havoc, its negative connotation has survived.

[kejedo]

One striking error is a sign in front of a residence with a surname plus and apostrophe and the letter 's'. Example The Brown's should just be The Browns  to show that a family of more than one person lives there. The apostrophe signifies the possessive (or genitive) case and needs a noun to show what it possesses. The Brown's House would be okay.   

Edited January 9, 2015 by kejedo

[Toy Poodles]

 

 

I love words though and through this thread we can learn how to sculpt our feelings, views and opinions in a tasteful way that reflects our God Jehovah. That is what I'm loving about this forum already - even when we disagree on something it is done in such a respectful way. I'm very impressed.

 

This is why I love reading your posts Mandi, you have what I would call a sing-song way of writing. It flows like music when I read your words. I loved your post about your travels to and from the convention. You truly have a way with words. 

[kejedo]

Sorry for the typo in 96

[nanceebgd46]

The vandals wrought havoc on the destroyed classroom.

 

From...'Using English.com'

 

We say 'wreak our revenge'; and the past tense of 'wreak' is 'wreaked', so that 'wreaked havoc' is correct.  HOWEVER, there is an archaic form 'wrought havoc', which is still very common, and preferred by some people (including me).  Note that 'wrought' is not an archaic past tense of 'wreak', but derives from a past tense of 'work' = as in 'worked miracles'.

 

The Cambridge Dictionary of American English says "wrought" can be the past of either "wreak" or "work". 

[minister159]

We are Jehovah's Witnesses. That is our name. Does that mean that an individual Witness is, "A Jehovah's Witness"? I respectfully submit that the answer is, no. Putting the "A" in front of "Jehovah's Witness," changes the name to a title.

 

In order for "A Jehovah's Witness" to be correct, our name would have to be, "The Jehovah's Witnesses," as in, "We are The Jehovah's Witnesses." Then it would be correct to say, "I am a Jehovah's Witness." However, it is correct to refer to Jehovah's Witnesses as, "The Witnesses," to distinguish them from just any one who is a witness to something. It is also correct to say, "He/she is/isn't a Witness," for the same reason. However, once we attach the possessive name "Jehovah's" to the word " Witness(es)," proper grammar requires that we not put the words "A" or "The" in front of it, lest we turn it into a title, as the news media does routinely.

 

So, I also respectfully submit that the only correct and proper expression of our name, both grammatically and scripturally, is, "We/They are Jehovah's Witnesses" in the plural form, or "I/He/she is one of Jehovah's Witnesses," in the singular form.

 

As the only organization on earth that Jehovah is using to bear his name and make it known, I think it's very important to 'get it right.'

Edited January 10, 2015 by minister159