NationStates Jolt Archive

Having participated in this forum for some months now, I have been annoyed by the many grammatical errors that I have seen and a few moments ago I saw a misuse of 'your' and I snapped. Therefore I am posting this thread. Please realise, it is not to be pedantic or fussy that I do this; it is merely out of a desire to promote correct English in order that we may all be fully understood. Thank you. What follows is a list of my pet gripes:

YOUR and YOU'RE

'Your': This is to denote second person singular or plural possessive - e.g. 'Your bag is green', 'Your time is up' etc.

'You're': This is merely a contraction of 'You are' - e.g. 'You're a most pleasant individual', 'You're free to go' etc.


THERE, THEIR and THEY'RE

'There': This is used to replace a noun which refers to a place - e.g. 'The green bag is over there', 'A: Are you at the hotel yet? B: We're almost there.'

'Their': This is to denote third person plural possessive - e.g. 'Their bags are green', 'Their picnic went swimmingly' etc.

'They're': This is a contraction of 'they are' - e.g. 'They're not very happy at being lectured about grammar', 'They're going to go and have a picnic' etc.


POSSESSIVES and PLURALS

This is basically about apostrophes. 'This country's' means either 'This country is' or roughly 'of this country' whereas 'countries' means 'more than one country'. Just never put an apostrophe and then an 's' unless you mean 'whatever is' or are referring to something belonging to whatever.


ITS and IT'S

'Its': This is the possessive of 'It'. There is no apostrohe. - e.g. 'Its head was very large', 'Its grammar was appalling' etc.

'It's': This is a contraction of 'It is' - e.g. 'It's getting dark now', 'It's becoming more and more dull by the minute' etc.


These are all I can think of for now but I will add more if I think of them!

So go and continue to write in the forum and elsewhere but please be sure to pay the English Language its proper respects as you so do. Thank you.

I do most heartily apologise if you find this thread patronising or condescending: on this subject, I just couldn't help it. :)

what u complayn about! i no need to use you're grammar rules.

Don't forget spelling: http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

*snip*I agree. Also infuriating is the use of a redundant apostrophe when writing dates and certain abbreviations. For example, 1980's and CD's. :headbang:

well I hate people who enforce grammar so we both hate each other (this turned out much like world politics :p )

I agree. Also infuriating is the use of a redundant apostrophe when writing dates and certain abbreviations. For example, 1980's and CD's. :headbang:

Actually, both those examples are considered acceptable as special cases because of the confusion that writing 1980s or CDs may create. But thanks for agreeing! ;)

My pet gripe is people who make grammatical mistakes in threads in which they complain about other people's grammar.

well I hate people who enforce grammar so we both hate each other (this turned out much like world politics :p )

I have no power to enforce grammar at all and my thread is just a plea so that we all know what we are saying. That's the most important thing.

Get over it, you're on the internet.

My pet gripe is people who make grammatical mistakes in threads in which they complain about other people's grammar.

Please tell me what my mistakes are so that I can correct them.

Actually, both those examples are considered acceptable as special cases because of the confusion that writing 1980s or CDs may create.Well, there has been some debate about this actually. Because the two examples I gave are so commonly used, some English academics have come to the conclusion that they are acceptable for the reason you cite, and also because they consider it some form of linguistic evolution. However, there remain a number of experts - indeed, as far as I am aware, the majority - that continue to feel the use of the apostrophe in such circumstances is erroneous. The Apostrophe Appreciation Society (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/) agrees :D

Get over it, you're on the internet.

I agree lol wid a hndfl o bean

Well, there has been some debate about this actually. Because the two examples I gave are so commonly used, some English academics have come to the conclusion that they are acceptable for the reason you cite, and also because they consider it some form of linguistic evolution. However, there remain a number of experts - indeed, as far as I am aware, the majority - that continue to feel the use of the apostrophe in such circumstances is erroneous. The Apostrophe Appreciation Society (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/) agrees :D

I admit defeat. :D

As long as the writing is understandable, I have no problem with it. However, the more eloquent your statements are the more likely they are to be taken seriously.

I admit defeat. :DWell, I have to admit to having made an error here (*gasp*) - it is the Apostrophe Protection Society, not 'Appreciation'. *Hangs her head in shame* :p

Get over it, you're on the internet.

I realise I'm fighting a losing battle; I just want to make it easier for people to understand each other.

I absolutely despised being taught grammar and spelling when I was in school, but I tend to obsess over it.

Well, I have to admit to having made an error here (*gasp*) - it is the Apostrophe Protection Society, not 'Appreciation'. *Hangs her head in shame* :p

It isn't a grammatical error though, so who cares?! :)

I absolutely despised being taught grammar and spelling when I was in school, but I tend to obsess over it.

Much of that grammar falls in to the most obscure reaches of the subject, and in no way enhances the ability of the students to express themselves in writing. I've seen students who know how to use semicolons properly but cannot spell "people".

Kazcaper already pointed out what I was in part referring to. Other than that though, I'm not aware that you've made any: in fact, there are one or two of your sentences that come across as being a little awkward, precisely because you're tripping over yourself to be correct. That's all just very minor though.

Basically though, I wasn't making a comment about this thread, but rather the vast number on these forums and others that try to set out advice on this matter - usually as a sub-agenda - and get it wrong in the process.

Also, I think these are all covered in one of the guides to RP writing by Euro or Steel Butterfly or someone. Anyway, I wasn't getting at you: just at people who insist on perfect grammar from everyone but themselves.

I realise I'm fighting a losing battle; I just want to make it easier for people to understand each other.

does grammar actually do that? besides if most of the English speaking people speak in "slang" then wouldn't you be wrong

As long as the writing is understandable, I have no problem with it. However, the more eloquent your statements are the more likely they are to be taken seriously.

Actually, eloquence often leads to complexity which in turn can be viewed as longwindedness, so the effect of your statement may be lessened or even ignored. Short, sweet, and to the point; people are more likely to take that seriously. I don't enjoy sifting through a bunch of meaningless, flowery garbage to get the gist out of a sentence. As long as you successfully convey the meaning behind your statement, I see no point in hand-picking every single word.

does grammar actually do that? besides if most of the English speaking people speak in "slang" then wouldn't you be wrong

I've never known someone be confused by the meaning of a correctly-worded sentence. True, we mostly understand people who slip up, but it never makes it easier.

I've seen students who know how to use semicolons properly but cannot spell "people".

im one of those students :D (does spell check) c’mon peple

does grammar actually do that? besides if most of the English speaking people speak in "slang" then wouldn't you be wrong

Yes. But most people where I come from do not speak in slang. The purpose of grammar is to be a set of rules for writing or speaking a language so that that language is standardised and everyone can understand each other. Grammar has very little purpose apart from that. Also, grammar is a separate issue to spelling, and I believe grammar is much the more important of the two.

Actually, eloquence often leads to complexity which in turn can be viewed as longwindedness, so the effect of your statement may be lessened or even ignored. Short, sweet, and to the point; people are more likely to take that seriously. I don't enjoy sifting through a bunch of meaningless, flowery garbage to get the gist out of a sentence. As long as you successfully convey the meaning behind your statement, I see no point in hand-picking every single word.

Eloquence is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'fluent or persuasive speaking or writing'

So brevity and sweetness could be considered eloquence. Being eloquent doesn't necessarily mean being flowery.

yes But most people where i come from do not speak in slang the purpose of grammar is to be a set of rules for writing or speaking A language so that that language is standardised and everyone can understand each other

(can anyone find all the faulty corrections I made? and even the one that was there anyway? just a bit of fun :) )

grammar that hasn't worked considering how I can't understand anyone from the North another example is how people talked differently in the 19 century

Kazcaper already pointed out what I was in part referring to. Other than that though, I'm not aware that you've made any: in fact, there are one or two of your sentences that come across as being a little awkward, precisely because you're tripping over yourself to be correct.


Yes, I realised that when I was writing the thread but I didn't want to leave myself vulnerable! :D

(can anyone find all the faulty corrections I made? and even the one that was there anyway? just a bit of fun :) )

grammar that hasn't worked considering how I can't understand anyone from the North another example is how people talked differently in the 19 century

The style in which people speak is always changing and grammar has to be flexible enough to allow that but I think that, for example, Dickens' novels are quite understandable. Also, different regions have different words and accents, but written grammar for a language is standard.

Eloquence is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 'fluent or persuasive speaking or writing'

So brevity and sweetness could be considered eloquence. Being eloquent doesn't necessarily mean being flowery.

Good job, you can read a dictionary. However, not everyone goes by the book. Eloquence isn't always synonymous with brevity and sweetness. It is often accompanied by flowery speech, and/or scarcely used words that can seem awkward and out of place. Perhaps the noun should be discarded in this conversation, replaced by a more precise word with fewer meanings. Both fluency and persuasiveness together are perfectly fitting, as opposed to eloquence. Sometimes breaking a word with many nuances down into its roots can achieve the most desired interpretation by your fellow peers.

You see, I didn't need to say all of that to get my point across - or did I? :rolleyes:

Good job, you can read a dictionary. However, not everyone goes by the book. Eloquence isn't always synonymous with brevity and sweetness. It is often accompanied by flowery speech, and/or scarcely used words that can seem awkward and out of place. Perhaps the noun should be discarded in this conversation, replaced by a more precise word with fewer meanings. Both fluency and persuasiveness together are perfectly fitting, as opposed to eloquence. Sometimes breaking a word with many nuances down into its roots can achieve the most desired interpretation by your fellow peers.

You see, I didn't need to say all of that to get my point across - or did I? :rolleyes:

We're arguing about the definition of eloquence here so it's hardly a big isuue but actually i do disagree with what you just wrote. Eloquence is speaking well, persuasively and fluently. Yes I can read a dictionary, but at the end of the day, I agree with the dictionary. Eloquence is not opposed to fluency and persuasiveness. You've got the wrong definition of eloquence in your mind. It's not about being flowery or awkward. If a piece of writing or speech is awkward then it is in no way eloquent. Please understand, the dictionary definition or eloquence is the one that I am familiar with, and it is the right one.

The style in which people speak is always changing and grammar has to be flexible enough to allow that but I think that, for example, Dickens' novels are quite understandable. Also, different regions have different words and accents, but written grammar for a language is standard.

Actually, the reason why a lot of 19th century work is difficult to read has nothing to do with the language itself but the culture of the time. The Victorian era was big on overwrought styles and formality in every dimension of life, and writing was no exception. That's why the more "upscale" literature is very difficult to read while that produced for more "common" audiences is easy.

We're arguing about the definition of eloquence here so it's hardly a big isuue but actually i do disagree with what you just wrote. Eloquence is speaking well, persuasively and fluently. Yes I can read a dictionary, but at the end of the day, I agree with the dictionary. Eloquence is not opposed to fluency and persuasiveness. You've got the wrong definition of eloquence in your mind. It's not about being flowery or awkward. If a piece of writing or speech is awkward then it is in no way eloquent. Please understand, the dictionary definition or eloquence is the one that I am familiar with, and it is the right one.

Eloquence has more meanings than persuasiveness and fluency. Just out of laziness, I'll copy and paste a bunch of bullshit from here (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=eloquence).

"Main Entry: rhetoric
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: wordiness
Synonyms: address, balderdash, big talk, bombast, composition, discourse, elocution, eloquence, flowery language, fustian, grandiloquence, hot air, hyperbole, long speech, magniloquence, oration, oratory, pomposity, rant, tall talk, verbosity
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved."

Note that rhetoric is a synonym for eloquence. You say you agree with the dictionary, so that means you must agree with the linked webpage I gave you. As I said, eloquence can have numerous meanings, it can be interpreted in countless ways. Flowery language is just one of them. Good day to you, sir.

Actually, the reason why a lot of 19th century work is difficult to read has nothing to do with the language itself but the culture of the time. The Victorian era was big on overwrought styles and formality in every dimension of life, and writing was no exception. That's why the more "upscale" literature is very difficult to read while that produced for more "common" audiences is easy.

But that was exactly what I was saying. In this case, the culture has changed the style that people wrote things in. But as I said before, not all literature from that era is incomprehensible.

Eloquence has more meanings than persuasiveness and fluency. Just out of laziness, I'll copy and paste a bunch of bullshit from here (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=eloquence).

"Main Entry: rhetoric
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: wordiness
Synonyms: address, balderdash, big talk, bombast, composition, discourse, elocution, eloquence, flowery language, fustian, grandiloquence, hot air, hyperbole, long speech, magniloquence, oration, oratory, pomposity, rant, tall talk, verbosity
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved."

Note that rhetoric is a synonym for eloquence. You say you agree with the dictionary, so that means you must agree with the linked webpage I gave you. As I said, eloquence can have numerous meanings, it can be interpreted in countless ways. Flowery language is just one of them. Good day to you, sir.

Whatever, I don't have to reply to this shite. Hang on a minute though, 'Flowery language' isn't listed as a synonym of eloquence at your link.

I do most heartily apologise if you find this thread patronising or condescending: on this subject, I just couldn't help it. :)

No apology required, of course I assume by this post that you, yourself never make grammatical errors of any type?

Also given that we could actually call some of the errors spelling errors, Ican safely assume since you feel it is your job to critique the entire community that you do not make any spelling errors. Yes?

Whatever, I don't have to reply to this shite. Hang on a minute though, 'Flowery language' isn't listed as a synonym of eloquence at your link.

'Rhetoric' is a synonym of 'Eloquence', and 'Flowery language' is a synonym of 'Rhetoric'. By the way, you spelled 'shit' wrong. :p

Whatever, I don't have to reply to this shite. Hang on a minute though, 'Flowery language' isn't listed as a synonym of eloquence at your link.

Ouch.

Let me do some correcting,

"Whatever, I don't have to reply to this shite. Hang on a minute though; 'Flowery language' isn't listed as a synonym of eloquence at your link."

Now I realize that is only one error, but you seem so set on hating them all that I want to help.

So I will review your posts for grammitical errors; I will post them here as this seems to be the thread for errors and this will give you a chance to better your own grammar.

Happy to help.

By the way Wendover, what country are you from?

So I will review your posts for grammitical errors

Will you be requiring a similar service?

(We really are quite petty.)

Seriously, have you not heard the word shite before. Because it's perfectly acceptable here and I use it quite a bit. Anyway...
Firstly, I agree with my dictionary because it is reputable and it has been published unlike the internet where anyone can put anything up.
Secondly, I agree with my dictionary not because it is a dictionary and dictionaries turn me on (they don't) but because its definition of eloquence is the one I am familiar with.
Thirdly, when thesauruses list words as synonyms, this does not mean that they mean exactly the same thing. No two words in the Engligh language do. Every word has a slightly different nuance and assossiations. Therefore just because 'Flowery language' may be listed as synonymous with 'rhetoric' and 'rhetoric' may be listed as synonymous with 'eloquence' this does not make 'eloquence' synonymous with 'flowery language' and your little website happens to agree with me on that.

No apology required, of course I assume by this post that you, yourself never make grammatical errors of any type?

Also given that we could actually call some of the errors spelling errors, Ican safely assume since you feel it is your job to critique the entire community that you do not make any spelling errors. Yes?

Of course I make grammatical and spelling mistakes. Of course I do and I'll be the first to admit it. It's just that I'm trying to put down some grammar rules in this thread so that people will be able to communicate more effectively. Is that alright with you? Please, I'm not trying to be a little arrogant prick, I just wanted to be helpful.

By the way Wendover, what country are you from?

The UK

Ouch.

Let me do some correcting,

"Whatever, I don't have to reply to this shite. Hang on a minute though; 'Flowery language' isn't listed as a synonym of eloquence at your link."

Now I realize that is only one error, but you seem so set on hating them all that I want to help.

So I will review your posts for grammitical errors; I will post them here as this seems to be the thread for errors and this will give you a chance to better your own grammar.

Happy to help.

Honestly, thank you.

I'm off to bed now, so g'night all! :D

My personal favourite is when people complain about others' "grammer."

That said, although I tend to obsess over grammar in printed materials and on professional websites, there isn't really a need to fault those who are not as well-versed in the intricacies of the English language as we are. Often English is not one's first language, and many native English speakers have learning difficulties such as dyslexia. My personal policy is to use proper English and to encourage those who can to do likewise. As long as we all understand one another, there's not much that needs to be fixed, right?

You have no idea. I used to correct the notes my friends passed to me in class. Now I work at a place that does casino surveys. I have to correct the spelling and grammar of every comment our interviewers enter into the surveys. I'm not perfect, but I like to think I was in English Honors for a reason. In dedication to my co-workers, I bought a t-shirt.

It says: "Sicks munce ago I coodn't evun spel gradjuwat and now I are won!"

I once nearly burst a blood vessel in a 'preteen fashion' store. I can't find where I wrote it down, but the text on a shirt said something to this effect:

"I'm so cute and your just jealous."

Also, there is a gym downtown called "Lady's Only Fitness." My mother likes to try to convince me that perhaps they did it intentionally and that it means that it is owned by a person named Lady and it is her only fitness centre. This argument falls flat when you realize that the woman who owns it is a family friend and her name is Barbara, not Lady.

Finally! Someone has realized the need to enforce grammar on these forums!
*Does the moonwalk*