Writing: when to use ... instead of ... [Archive]

drkitten

9th February 2011, 11:35 AM

DavidS

9th February 2011, 11:44 AM

(Not sure if this fits in this forum or in community. If he latter, please move.)

I'm not that bad at writing in English, if I may say so :)
But I always have a hard time telling which word to use, if there are different spellings of it, and with that, different meanings.

For example, is there an easy way to know when I should use:

Life - Live
Anyone - Someone
Anybody - Somebody

I'll add to this thread if more come along.

I'll take a stab at it, but be advised that English isn't my primary tongue (I'm an Okie) and I'm not consulting formal references:

Anyone:
a) Any person, arbitrarily chosen (possibly from a class). Anyone with a first-grade education can spell his name.
b) A functional definition of a class of persons. Anyone with a first grade education should be promoted to second grade.
Anybody: Virtually synonymous with "anyone", AFAIK

Someone:
a) At least one person, but possibly not just anyone. Someone must have a pencil I can borrow.
b) A particular person, but not specifically identified. Someone spilled coffee on my keyboard.
Somebody: Virtually synonymous with "someone", AFAIK.

Adding one that I tend to notice:

Affect:
a) Display characteristics. I sometimes affect intelligence, with variable success.
b) Ability to influence. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect climate.
Effect :
a) Result of a cause. Warming is an effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
b) Action of causing. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is a method to effect global warming. (OK, so I'm not so clear on that one...)

And obligatory obscurity:

Away:
a) At/to some remote location. Take that away from him.
b) Begin. Fire away.
Aweigh:
Suspend or lift. "Anchor's aweigh" means "the anchor's been lifted", probably so the ship can sail away.

gnome

9th February 2011, 11:46 AM

I would say that the difference between "Anyone" and "Someone" is that "Anyone" implies at least one, where "Someone" implies exactly one.

marplots

9th February 2011, 11:49 AM

Harder version: when to use everyone and every one, anyone and any one, and a favorite: awhile and a while.

TheAnachronism

9th February 2011, 01:59 PM

Harder version: when to use everyone and every one, anyone and any one, and a favorite: awhile and a while.

Every one of us should do our part to help the environment so that everyone in the world can have the benefit of clean and healthy surroundings. Any one solution to the problem of climate change is unlikely to be perfect, but anyone with an alternative plan has certainly taken a while to respond. These measures are going to have to last awhile to do any good.

gnome

9th February 2011, 02:05 PM

An easy one: "no one" vs. "noone"... clearly, the latter is only if you're referring to the Herman's Hermits singer.

MG1962

9th February 2011, 02:12 PM

For example, is there an easy way to know when I should use:

Life - Live
Anyone - Someone
Anybody - Somebody

Yes

Bell

9th February 2011, 02:14 PM

An easy one: "no one" vs. "noone"... clearly, the latter is only if you're referring to the Herman's Hermits singer.

Safari tells me that "noone" is spelled incorrectly :p

An other one:

Dead - death

Giraffe107

9th February 2011, 02:58 PM

"My cat is dead."
"My cat was bored to death."

rwguinn

9th February 2011, 03:27 PM

"If A has 200 calories and 10% are from fat, and B has 200 calorise, with 40% being from fat, then A is better for you than B"
Half the EPL speakers here use "Then" in both instances...

BNRT

9th February 2011, 03:38 PM

One more:

"If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is their own fault if they're spelling stuff wrong."

marplots

9th February 2011, 04:02 PM

The check is in the mail.
The cheque is in the mail. (think metal links)
The Czech is in the male.
The Czech is in the Mael.

My brain has a lot of stupid that oozes out.

Pantaz

9th February 2011, 09:45 PM

Some helpful resources:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
http://www.tameri.com/edit/usage.html

lionking

9th February 2011, 09:49 PM

Tell you what Bell, you have a better grasp of English than many born with the language.

SusanB-M1

9th February 2011, 11:02 PM

I'll take a stab at it, but be advised that English isn't my primary tongue (I'm an Okie) and I'm not consulting formal references:
What's an 'Okie'?

The incorrect use of affect and effect, which creates ambiguity, is something that I hstarted a topic - or rather a mini rant! - about, on the BBC '#Word of Mouth' board recently. BBC Radio 4 reporters have in recent times taken to using the wrong word much too often in my opinion!

slingblade

9th February 2011, 11:08 PM

One more:

"If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is their own fault if they're spelling stuff wrong."

Ooh, I have one for those!

There contains the word "here." Here is a place. So it always designates a place.

Their contains the word heir, as in heir to a fortune. An heir is a person. So it always designates a person.

They're is neither one of those. :)

rjh01

9th February 2011, 11:19 PM

Safari tells me that "noone" is spelled incorrectly :p

An other one:

Dead - death

Dead is what a person is after death. The later is an event, the former a person or something that is no longer alive.

What can be dead yet never experienced death?
Something to do with electricity. Such as electrical equipment, wires

Dave Rogers

10th February 2011, 01:23 AM

An other one:

Dead - death

Dead is an adjective, so it describes the condition. Death is a noun, so it describes the process.

And, in case it helps, "an other" is virtually never used (I'd say never, but if I did someone would post an example within a few nanoseconds); the two words are pretty much always (see above) run together as "another".

Dave

Bell

10th February 2011, 03:26 AM

Thanks for the feedback so far! Very helpful.

Tell you what Bell, you have a better grasp of English than many born with the language.

Thanks Lionking. Although the spellcheck in Safari helps me on a few occasions and in the past I used Google as a spellcheck (did you mean ...) :)

Bell

10th February 2011, 03:29 AM

For Dutch readers only:

I hate it when "eens" is replaced by "is" (Ga is naar de kapper)

Darat

10th February 2011, 03:34 AM

While or whilst?

:p

Darat

10th February 2011, 03:35 AM

brodski

10th February 2011, 03:41 AM

What's an 'Okie'?

I understand that it is someone who doesn’t smoke marijuana, or take their trips on LSD. They certainly don't burn their draft cards down on Main Street. However they do like living right, and being free. For them Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear; Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen. They are sure that football is still the roughest thing on campus, and that their kids still respect the college dean.

Unless Mr Haggard has lied to me.

(It’s someone form Oklahoma).

The incorrect use of affect and effect, which creates ambiguity, is something that I hstarted a topic - or rather a mini rant! - about, on the BBC '#Word of Mouth' board recently. BBC Radio 4 reporters have in recent times taken to using the wrong word much too often in my opinion!

Fewer people would make this mistake if they didn’t adhere to this silly, modern fad of refusing to use impact as a verb.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th February 2011, 03:52 AM

I understand that it is someone who doesn’t smoke marijuana, or take their trips on LSD. They certainly don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street. However they do like living right, and being free. For them Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear; Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen. They are sure that football is still the roughest thing on campus, and that their kids still respect the college dean.

Unless Mr Haggard has lied to me.

(It’s someone form Oklahoma).

Doesn't that just apply to the ones from Muskogee? I always assumed the rest were wacked out hippies.

Or people who sang about cornfields.

Milbrandt

10th February 2011, 04:49 AM

For Dutch readers only:

I hate it when "eens" is replaced by "is" (Ga is naar de kapper)

Yes, I hate that one too. It's definitely one of the most annoying mistakes that people make in Dutch. I always use the following sentence to illustrate the stupidity of this mistake: Het was is, maar nooit weer.

What I used to find confusing (but am used to now) was the difference between the long and short scale numbers.
English: One million = 1.000.000 One billion = 1.000.000.000
Dutch: Een miljoen = 1.000.000 Een biljoen = 1.000.000.000.000

Also confusing could be the difference between a centipede and millipede.
In Dutch we call them "duizendpoot" and "miljoenpoot" respectively.
Centipede mean something like "hundred legs" and millipede "thousand legs", while duizendpoot means "thousand legs" and miljoenpoot means "million legs".

I guess we Dutch just like to exaggerate more than the English speakers do.

Ethan Thane Athen

10th February 2011, 05:05 AM

What's an 'Okie'?

The incorrect use of affect and effect, which creates ambiguity, is something that I hstarted a topic - or rather a mini rant! - about, on the BBC '#Word of Mouth' board recently. BBC Radio 4 reporters have in recent times taken to using the wrong word much too often in my opinion!

Oooh, my all time pet peeve. I work in an organisation of over 1,000 people and I think only about 10 of us understand the difference between affect and effect. Even when I've tried to explain it to people they still get it wrong and in many cases simply adopt a 50/50 approach to it, liberally sprinkling both through their papers in the hope that some land correctly!

I try and keep it simple, explaining that in most cases affect is the verb and effect the noun* but they can't even get that. I've concluded they can't all be stupid, they must just be disinterested.

*Yes I know that you can 'effect a change' so effect can be a verb (ie cause something to take effect!) but it's not usually used that way and affect can be a noun but that's even more rare.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th February 2011, 05:11 AM

I try and keep it simple, explaining that in most cases affect is the verb and effect the noun* but they can't even get that. I've concluded they can't all be stupid, they must just be disinterested

Hopefully that's true.

Cuddles

10th February 2011, 05:18 AM

An easy one: "no one" vs. "noone"... clearly, the latter is only if you're referring to the Herman's Hermits singer.

No-one.

The check is in the mail.
The cheque is in the mail. (think metal links)
The Czech is in the male.
The Czech is in the Mael.

This one depends on country. The first option doesn't exist in the UK, since we have cheques, not checks. Well, we have checks, but they're not the same as cheques. If you tried passing a check into your chequeing account, the teller would check you, and you might end up being checked out by the police to see why you were checking instead of chequeing your check.

The later is an event

Latter.

brodski

10th February 2011, 05:22 AM

. I've concluded they can't all be stupid, they must just be disinterested.
Was phrasing that intentional?

Dave Rogers

10th February 2011, 06:25 AM

The incorrect use of affect and effect, which creates ambiguity, is something that I hstarted a topic - or rather a mini rant! - about, on the BBC '#Word of Mouth' board recently. BBC Radio 4 reporters have in recent times taken to using the wrong word much too often in my opinion!

Yes, it effects a severely negative affect upon me too.

Dave

BNRT

10th February 2011, 07:30 AM

For Dutch readers only:

I hate it when "eens" is replaced by "is" (Ga is naar de kapper)

Something I also hear using the verb 'to go' in Dutch, when it is not needed at all. For example: "Toen ging hij weglopen." Grates on my nerves.

Yes, I am one of those persons who would like to shout at people. "Het is 'zij'! Niet 'hun'!"

W.D.Clinger

10th February 2011, 07:40 AM

I would say that the difference between "Anyone" and "Someone" is that "Anyone" implies at least one, where "Someone" implies exactly one.
I disagree. Consider, for example:

Anyone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes.
Someone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes.

The first statement is false, even though at least one person can do the deed. The second is true, even though more than one person can do the deed.

In precise English, "anyone" indicates universal quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification) but "someone" indicates existential quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification).

The words are often used improperly, especially in negative contexts (because most people get confused by the interactions between negation and quantification).

gnome

10th February 2011, 07:43 AM

I bow to your superior analysis.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th February 2011, 08:02 AM

This is more of a question. Is 'dominate' a synonym for 'dominant'?

I always thought dominate was the verb and dominant the adjective, but I see a lot of people using dominate adjectivally e.g. here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6862155#post6862155)

What's up with that?

rwguinn

10th February 2011, 08:13 AM

I understand that it is someone who doesn’t smoke marijuana, or take their trips on LSD. They certainly don't burn their draft cards down on Main Street. However they do like living right, and being free. For them Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear; Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen. They are sure that football is still the roughest thing on campus, and that their kids still respect the college dean.

Unless Mr Haggard has lied to me.

(It’s someone form Oklahoma).

Only those in Muskogee, which is getting close to hillbilly country. :D

Fewer people would make this mistake if they didn’t adhere to this silly, modern fad of refusing to use impact as a verb.But they don't hesitate to verb nouns...

DavidS

10th February 2011, 08:30 AM

What's an 'Okie'?
In modern usage, it's a person from Oklahoma. That's what Merle meant in his little ditty... but at the time it was actually incorrect usage.

Back in the 1930's, the great depression coincided with an extended drought, especially severe in the Texas panhandle and western Oklahoma and Kansas. Agricultural practices of the day weren't very conservative of unprotected topsoil. The unusual drought but otherwise typical windstorms literally blew many fields away in great dust storms -- this was the Dust Bowl (there's a reason the song says "where the wind comes sweeping down the plain"). With the injury of crop failures and land devastation added to the insult of the depression, thousands of farmers who lost everything migrated away to start over. Many went to California's central valley, where the term "Okie" was applied as an insult to these dirt-poor dirt farmers.

That is, originally the Okies were the ones who left Oklahoma, not the ones who stayed. Among the latter the story is that the Okies moved to California and added ten points to the average IQs of both states.

A few decades back (late '70s IIRC) the OK legislature claimed the title "Okie" for residents of the state, presumably because many of us would rather not be called "Sooner" (which is either somebody who cheated during the 19th century land runs or the mascot of the pocket-comb factory and barber school in Norman).

Doesn't that just apply to the ones from Muskogee? I always assumed the rest were wacked out hippies.

Or people who sang about cornfields.
Having family in Fort Gibson (the oldest town in the state, and essentially a suburb of Muskogee [yeah, I know]), I can attest that Muskogee isn't exactly representative of the state. Then again, what single city in a state bigger than Rhode Island is? Hippies do exist in Oklahoma, even outside county fair petting zoos, but not in thundering herds like Austin or San Francisco.

Corn (maize to Eurofolk?) isn't a particularly big product in Oklahoma, at least not as grain. Much of the "feed corn" grown in OK is harvested in its entirety, chopped/crimped/fermented into cattle feed. The economically biggest products are petroleum, wheat, cattle, and horses (in that order IIRC, but that ranking may be some years stale; you can Wiki as easy as I).

Guybrush Threepwood

10th February 2011, 08:35 AM

Corn (maize to Eurofolk?) isn't a particularly big product in Oklahoma, at least not as grain. Much of the "feed corn" grown in OK is harvested in its entirety, chopped/crimped/fermented into cattle feed. The economically biggest products are petroleum, wheat, cattle, and horses (in that order IIRC, but that ranking may be some years stale; you can Wiki as easy as I).

Way to trample on my cherished images! But it does grow as high as an elephant's eye doesn't it?

Dr. Keith

10th February 2011, 09:00 AM

Hopefully that's true.

Speaking of pet peeves . . . I know that words change with usage and I need to get over this, but it is a rule that I work to follow so the modern usage tends to grate my internal editor. This article is the sort of therapy I need:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/hopefully.aspx

brodski

10th February 2011, 09:18 AM

Speaking of pet peeves . . . I know that words change with usage and I need to get over this, but it is a rule that I work to follow so the modern usage tends to grate my internal editor. This article is the sort of therapy I need:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/hopefully.aspx

Frankly, I think it's a bloody silly objection.
Thankfully, very few people object to sentence adverbs these days.
Oddly, it seems that hopefully comes in for more criticism than other sentence adverbs.

:D

Dr. Keith

10th February 2011, 09:24 AM

Frankly, I think it's a bloody silly objection.
Thankfully, very few people object to sentence adverbs these days.
Oddly, it seems that hopefully comes in for more criticism than other sentence adverbs.

:D

Yes, that was the point of the article I linked. It is something I am working through. Give me time.

brodski

10th February 2011, 09:32 AM

Yes, that was the point of the article I linked. It is something I am working through. Give me time.

Try this one aswell http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hop2.htm
World-wide-words is always good read. :)

Ethan Thane Athen

10th February 2011, 09:40 AM

Was phrasing that intentional?

OK, I'm missing something and happy to be educated....:)

brodski

10th February 2011, 09:56 AM

OK, I'm missing something and happy to be educated....:)

Some people hold that there is a hard and fast distinction between disinterested and uninterested.
Under this distinction, disinterested is used to mean impartial, or not having an “interest” or “stake” in the outcome of something. For example, “the moderation here would be much better if all moderators were anonymous, disinterested, Danes.”
Uninterested means that someone does not care about something, they are not interested by that thing.

If I were on trial I would want a disinterested judge and jury, but would hate to have an uninterested one.

In reality the distinction has never been that hard and fast, and we are swinging back to a period where the terms are used more interchangeably than they have in the recent past, but some people care deeply about the distinction.

DavidS

10th February 2011, 12:33 PM

Way to trample on my cherished images! But it does grow as high as an elephant's eye doesn't it?
I've never had opportunity to check. Okies are typically fond of barbecue, and state hunting regulations impose no bag limit. We almost ran out of buffalo that way.

Guybrush Threepwood

10th February 2011, 12:44 PM

. I've concluded they can't all be stupid, they must just be disinterested.
Was phrasing that intentional?OK, I'm missing something and happy to be educated....:)

Sorry Ethan, I thought it was deliberate, which is why I made my 'hopefully' post to start a game of pedant tag.

TheAnachronism

10th February 2011, 12:52 PM

One more:

"If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is their own fault if they're spelling stuff wrong."

If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is his or her own fault if he or she [is] spelling stuff wrong.

At least some people would argue that the above is the only proper way to do it.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 01:03 PM

If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is his or her own fault if he or she [is] spelling stuff wrong.

At least some people would argue that the above is the only proper way to do it.

It's called antecedent agreement.

"Someone" is the antecedent (ante = before) to the pronoun in your sentence. The antecedent is singular so the pronoun needs to agree and also be singular. You could use 'one's own fault', or 'his/her own fault'. I prefer the '/' to the longer version, 'or'.

BNRT

10th February 2011, 01:21 PM

If someone went to school and did not pay attention there, it is his or her own fault if he or she [is] spelling stuff wrong.

At least some people would argue that the above is the only proper way to do it.

Isn't it a law that if you correct someone's grammar, you invariably make a mistake yourself? :p

Would 'anyone' instead of 'someone' be better? Or 'people'?

brodski

10th February 2011, 01:25 PM

It's called antecedent agreement.

"Someone" is the antecedent (ante = before) to the pronoun in your sentence. The antecedent is singular so the pronoun needs to agree and also be singular. You could use 'one's own fault', or 'his/her own fault'. I prefer the '/' to the longer version, 'or'.

They, like you, can be both singular and plural in English. Although they usually takes plural forms, there is nothing wrong with matching "they" with "one".

If you wanted argue it is wrong you would have to take issue with almost five centuries of use in educated formal English (singular they is used in the 1526 Tyndale bible and the 1611 KJV).
You would also have take issue with the works of any number of the best writers the English language has ever produced from Shakespeare through to Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, George Elliott, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, George Orwell and C. S. Lewis and so on, every one of them used singular they.
You would also have to disagree with pretty much every linguist who has looked at the evidence.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:02 PM

I'll take a stab at it: the "one" and "body" are generally interchangeable, but the "any" refers to one or more and the "some" to a single (but unknown) individual. For example:

"Somebody stole my clogs." (said with a single unknown person in mind)

"Why would anyone want your clogs?" (refers to a member of a subset of people)'Any' refers to zero or more. 'One' refers to at least one. In your example, only one person likely stole the one thing, but you are not necessarily excluding the possibility more than one person was in on it.
But they're often interchangeable -- e.g. "can someone give me a hand here?" vs "can anyone give me a hand here?"

In general, "any" is used in a negative context -- "I didn't think that anyone was around," but that's not a hard and fast rule.This is correct but it is because the implication is, you thought there were zero persons around. So when you use it with "did not think" as in your example, you would use 'any' and not 'some' because 'any' includes zero.
I would say that the difference between "Anyone" and "Someone" is that "Anyone" implies at least one, where "Someone" implies exactly one.Again, 'any' includes zero. 'Someone' implies at least one, though there may be more than one in a group.

"Someone here knows the truth", is saying at least one. It could be more than one or it could be exactly one but not less than one. And the questioner could mean one person or could mean at least one person depending on context. If the questioner intends it to be exactly one he/she can also say, "One of you knows the truth".

"Any" includes the possibility of no one or someone.

"Some" excludes the possibility of no one.

So if, for example, you are wanting to ask if anyone knows where your shoes are, here are some subtle differences depending on what exactly you are saying.

Does anyone know where my shoes are? It is possible no person knows. The person asking may also be considering a person outside the group being asked knows.

Does someone know where my shoes are? While it sounds right and is commonly used, it isn't correct if you are asking a bunch of individuals if one of them knows. The question technically is asking if "someone" or "no one" knows rather than asking one of the individuals to reveal that they know where the shoes are.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:13 PM

They, like you, can be both singular and plural in English. Although they usually takes plural forms, there is nothing wrong with matching "they" with "one".

If you wanted argue it is wrong you would have to take issue with almost five centuries of use in educated formal English (singular they is used in the 1526 Tyndale bible and the 1611 KJV).
You would also have take issue with the works of any number of the best writers the English language has ever produced from Shakespeare through to Jonathan Swift, Jane Austen, George Elliott, Sir Walter Scott, Charles Dickens, John Ruskin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Walt Whitman, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Oscar Wilde, Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, F. Scott Fitzgerald, George Orwell and C. S. Lewis and so on, every one of them used singular they.
You would also have to disagree with pretty much every linguist who has looked at the evidence.
It's not universally accepted that one can substitute, they, them, & theirs, where a singular pronoun is called for.
If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular pronoun. (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/)

Singular theyThough singular they is widespread in everyday English and has a long history of usage, debate continues about its acceptability.

Personally, I don't care and would never criticize the use of the singular 'they'. But in helping an ESL speaker it's a lot simpler to cite one rule that can be applied to all pronouns rather than saying to read the entire page of Wiki explaining how common usage created a gazillion exceptions.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:27 PM

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:30 PM

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:34 PM

brodski

10th February 2011, 02:36 PM

It's not universally accepted that one can substitute, they, them, & theirs, where a singular pronoun is called for.
If the pronoun takes the place of a singular noun, you have to use a singular pronoun. (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/)
OK, can you explain how that works with you?

Singular they

Personally, I don't care and would never criticize the use of the singular 'they'. But in helping an ESL speaker it's a lot simpler to cite one rule that can be applied to all pronouns rather than saying to read the entire page of Wiki explaining how common usage created a gazillion exceptions.

But it's not a rule, it does not reflect how English is used by the best writers, by the educated in standard dialects in formal use, and it does not reflect how English has been used for almost 5 centuries. It is only controversial due to the ill-informed or the downright nuts criticising perfectly grammatical, standard English constructions.

Debate on singular they continues to this day in pretty much the same way that debate on evolution Vs creationism continues. All the evidence and experts are on one side, but a few passionate and vocal people wish that it were not so.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:37 PM

I understand that it is someone who doesn’t smoke marijuana, or take their trips on LSD. They certainly don't burn their draft cards down on Main Street. However they do like living right, and being free. For them Leather boots are still in style for manly footwear; Beads and Roman sandals won't be seen. They are sure that football is still the roughest thing on campus, and that their kids still respect the college dean.

Unless Mr Haggard has lied to me.:D

(It’s someone form Oklahoma)....This is an error I blame the keyboard for. Teh, -oin, and a dozen other errors I type over and over annoy me to no end. :(

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:42 PM

...
Fewer people would make this [affect/effect] mistake if they didn’t adhere to this silly, modern fad of refusing to use impact as a verb.Here's some great advice and I resort to the tactic all the time. If I can't figure out the right word or spelling, I pick another way altogether of saying what I want to say.

Dr. Keith

10th February 2011, 02:44 PM

I don't recall ever seeing that error.

Hopefully, you never will.

(It just doesn't sound right!)

I see it all the time, but I read sources that are less formal than the JREF on a pretty regular basis.

Then/Than
Effect/Affect
To/Too

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:46 PM

Doesn't that just apply to the ones from Muskogee? I always assumed the rest were wacked out hippies.

Or people who sang about cornfields.Hippies were never called Okies.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:50 PM

Yes, I hate that one too. It's definitely one of the most annoying mistakes that people make in Dutch. I always use the following sentence to illustrate the stupidity of this mistake: Het was is, maar nooit weer.

What I used to find confusing (but am used to now) was the difference between the long and short scale numbers.
English: One million = 1.000.000 One billion = 1.000.000.000
Dutch: Een miljoen = 1.000.000 Een biljoen = 1.000.000.000.000

Also confusing could be the difference between a centipede and millipede.
In Dutch we call them "duizendpoot" and "miljoenpoot" respectively.
Centipede mean something like "hundred legs" and millipede "thousand legs", while duizendpoot means "thousand legs" and miljoenpoot means "million legs".

I guess we Dutch just like to exaggerate more than the English speakers do.:D

Your post made me curious. According to Wilki, millipedes have up to 400 legs and centipedes up to 300 but those are extremes.

brodski

10th February 2011, 02:51 PM

:D

This is an error I blame the keyboard for. Teh, -oin, and a dozen other errors I type over and over annoy me to no end. :(

Yup, the one that bugs me is eth. I have largely trained myself to not type teh, and anyway spell-check picks that one up, but as eth is a word, most spell-check packages let is go by.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 02:56 PM

I disagree. Consider, for example:

Anyone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes.
Someone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes.

The first statement is false, even though at least one person can do the deed. The second is true, even though more than one person can do the deed.

In precise English, "anyone" indicates universal quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification) but "someone" indicates existential quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_quantification).

The words are often used improperly, especially in negative contexts (because most people get confused by the interactions between negation and quantification).These examples made me rethink my post. In the first sentence it implies everyone can run a 4 minute mile. The usage sounds correct. It has a specific meaning, "anyone can do it".

Edited after looking for the answer:

OK, 'any' can also mean 'all'. 'Some' would never mean 'all'. This makes sense in light of my other post on the use of 'any' and 'some' as 'all' would include zero in a number set.

PS, I realize that's what you were saying, but I needed to understand it in English. ;)

AdMan

10th February 2011, 03:07 PM

These examples made me rethink my post. In the first sentence it implies everyone can run a 4 minute mile. The usage sounds correct. It has a specific meaning, "anyone can do it". I wonder if it's like asking, "does someone want [x]", in that we might say the sentence that way but technically it isn't correct?

WORD doesn't offer a gramatical correction when I type the sentence. I suspect there is another rule I need to figure out. WORD doesn't correct the wrong use of 'someone' either, so that's no help.

OK, any can also mean "all". Some would not mean "all".

Sorry, which sentence are you saying MSWord doesn't correct? Is it "Anyone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes"? That sentence is grammatically correct, what it isn't is true.

Or am I looking at the wrong sentence? :confused:

RSLancastr

10th February 2011, 03:24 PM

Safari tells me that "noone" is spelled incorrectly :p

An other one:

Dead - death

I believe that should be "another one"

Dead is an adjective, Death is a noun.

one I have never understood is "that" vs. "which"

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 03:27 PM

brodski

10th February 2011, 03:34 PM

one I have never understood is "that" vs. "which"

That's because the "rule" surrounding which to use (in restrictive and non restrictive clauses) was made up out of whole-cloth during the early 19th century, with little regard to how the words are actually used.

I would put pretty good money on you instinctively using the words grammatically, but are left with a nagging feeling that you're not doing it quite right, or have broken some rule. The "nervous classlessness" amongst educated English speakers (to borrow a phrase) is the damage which has been done by generations of crap grammar teaching and crap popular grammar, diction and punctuation advice. Fowler, Strunk, White, Truss, Humphreys and Heffer I'm looking at you.

gnome

10th February 2011, 03:35 PM

I believe that should be "another one"

Dead is an adjective, Death is a noun.

one I have never understood is "that" vs. "which"

Allow me to bring in a guest commentator, the late James Thurber, to discuss that one.

Mr. Thurber:

What most people don’t realize is that one “which” leads to another. Trying to cross a paragraph by leaping from “which” to “which” is like Eliza crossing the ice. The danger is in missing a “which” and falling in.http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/whichthurber.htm

I seem to have misremembered that he discussed using "that" instead... but I think his comments still wrap up the matter nicely.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 03:38 PM

But they don't hesitate to verb nouns...Impact can be a verb: had an impact, impacts the thing, will impact us.

The AM Heritage Dictionary (linked from the Free Dictionary) has an interesting comment on 'verbing' nouns. ;)

Contact (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/contact)However, turning nouns into verbs is one of the most frequent ways in which new verbs enter English. Sometimes there is resistance to such verbs, but often, especially when a term seems free of association with the jargon of business or bureaucracy, acceptance comes more freely, as with curb, date, elbow, interview, panic, and park. Contact is but another instance of what linguists call functional shift from one part of speech to another. As for the vagueness of contact, this seems a virtue in an age in which forms of communication have proliferated. The sentence We will contact you when the part comes in allows for a variety of possible ways to communicate: by mail, telephone, computer, or fax. · Despite the lengthy history of disapproval of contact by language critics, the verb's usefulness and popularity appear to have worn down resistance to it. In 1969, only 34 percent of the Usage Panel accepted the use of contact as a verb, but in a recent survey 65 percent of the Panel accepted it in the sentence She immediately called an officer at the Naval Intelligence Service, who in turn contacted the FBI.Impact (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/impact)The use of impact as a verb meaning "to have an effect" often has a big impact on readers. In our 2001 survey, 85 percent of the Usage Panel disapproved of the construction to impact on, as in the sentence These policies are impacting on our ability to achieve success; fully 80 percent disapproved of the use of impact as a transitive verb in the sentence The court ruling will impact the education of minority students. · It is unclear why this usage provokes such a strong response, but it cannot be because of novelty. Impact has been used as a verb since 1601, when it meant "to fix or pack in," and its modern, figurative use dates from 1935. It may be that its frequent appearance in the jargon-riddled remarks of politicians, military officials, and financial analysts continues to make people suspicious. Nevertheless, the verbal use of impact has become so common in the working language of corporations and institutions that many speakers have begun to regard it as standard. It seems likely, then, that the verb will eventually become as unobjectionable as contact is now, since it will no longer betray any particular pretentiousness on the part of those who use it.

brodski

10th February 2011, 03:44 PM

Impact can be a verb: had an impact, impacts the thing, will impact us.

Impact entered the English language as a verb and has always been used as a verb, it later became a noun. Many people object to using impact as a verb as they feel that it is a modern fad based on the recent* trend of turning nouns into verbs.

*by recent I mean that it's only been going on in English for as long as the English language has existed.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 03:51 PM

OK, can you explain how that works with you?

But it's not a rule, it does not reflect how English is used by the best writers, by the educated in standard dialects in formal use, and it does not reflect how English has been used for almost 5 centuries. It is only controversial due to the ill-informed or the downright nuts criticising perfectly grammatical, standard English constructions.

Debate on singular they continues to this day in pretty much the same way that debate on evolution Vs creationism continues. All the evidence and experts are on one side, but a few passionate and vocal people wish that it were not so.It is a simple rule that the pronoun needs to agree with the antecedent. To explain all the exceptions where the singular 'they' is allowed is not so easy.

One goes to the store to buy their bread.
Mary goes to the store to buy their bread.

You know from the second sentence Mary is buying someone else's bread. In the first sentence it could be one's bread or someone else's bread.

If you are describing the rules to an ESL speaker, and you said one can use the singular 'they', then you'd need to explain all sorts of reasons it was allowed or not allowed. OTOH, if you just say the antecedent needs to agree with the pronoun, all you have to explain is that 'they' is plural and 'he/she' is singular.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 03:53 PM

Impact entered the English language as a verb and has always been used as a verb, it later became a noun. Many people object to using impact as a verb as they feel that it is a modern fad based on the recent* trend of turning nouns into verbs.

*by recent I mean that it's only been going on in English for as long as the English language has existed.
Did it start as a verb and become a noun or vice versa?

Almo

10th February 2011, 03:53 PM

"If A has 200 calories and 10% are from fat, and B has 200 calorise, with 40% being from fat, then A is better for you than B"
Half the EPL speakers here use "Then" in both instances...
I don't recall ever seeing that error.

I see it a lot in chat and on forums, and I hear it a bit among non-native speakers here in Quebec.

The law about making errors when correcting grammar is Muphry's Law.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 03:56 PM

Sorry, which sentence are you saying MSWord doesn't correct? Is it "Anyone can run a mile in less than 4 minutes"? That sentence is grammatically correct, what it isn't is true.

Or am I looking at the wrong sentence? :confused:See my final post edit. I was thinking out loud and then figured it out.

I Ratant

10th February 2011, 04:02 PM

"Woe is I; the complete grammaphobes guide to grammar" Patricia O'Connor.
The -only- source for correctness in grammar!
http://www.filestube.com/w/woe+is+i

brodski

10th February 2011, 04:03 PM

It is a simple rule that the pronoun needs to agree with the antecedent. To explain all the exceptions where the singular 'they' is allowed is not so easy.

One goes to the store to buy their bread.
Mary goes to the store to buy their bread.

You know from the second sentence Mary is buying someone else's bread. In the first sentence it could be one's bread or someone else's bread.

If you are describing the rules to an ESL speaker, and you said one can use the singular 'they', then you'd need to explain all sorts of reasons it was allowed or not allowed. OTOH, if you just say the antecedent needs to agree with the pronoun, all you have to explain is that 'they' is plural and 'he/she' is singular.

For the sake of explaining one less exception (you already need to explain the exception for you) you are giving people incorrect information.

Why not just point out that both you and they are usually plural in form, but can be used as singular and that they normally take plural forms except when no plural form is available?

brodski

10th February 2011, 04:06 PM

Did it start as a verb and become a noun or vice versa?

It started as a verb, many people do not know this and are convinced that it is a noun which has only recently begun to be used as a verb. The "recent" use of impact as a verb is often criticised by some of these people.

AdMan

10th February 2011, 04:12 PM

One goes to the store to buy their bread.
Mary goes to the store to buy their bread.

You know from the second sentence Mary is buying someone else's bread. In the first sentence it could be one's bread or someone else's bread.

I don't think this is correct. "One" is singular, so it couldn't be one's bread that one is buying if you say that first sentence.

The grammatically correct sentence if you want to convey that meaning would be, IMO:

One goes to the store to buy one's bread.

AdMan

10th February 2011, 04:13 PM

See my final post edit. I was thinking out loud and then figured it out.

Got it. :)

marplots

10th February 2011, 04:33 PM

If you are describing the rules to an ESL speaker, and you said one can use the singular 'they', then you'd need to explain all sorts of reasons it was allowed or not allowed. OTOH, if you just say the antecedent needs to agree with the pronoun, all you have to explain is that 'they' is plural and 'he/she' is singular.

I write for a living and I use the singular possessive their. It bothers me, but here's why I do it-- it gets around the difficulty of salting with "his" and "hers" to meet politically correct sensibilities. When it hurts my ear to use it this way, I try to rewrite the sentence without the pronoun. I also avoid "one" as a generic identifier, as in, "One orders the chowder with an expectation that there will be no bones."

Rephrasing a sentence will generally solve all problems.

brodski

10th February 2011, 04:37 PM

I write for a living and I use the singular possessive their. It bothers me.

Why does it bother you?

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 04:54 PM

For the sake of explaining one less exception (you already need to explain the exception for you) you are giving people incorrect information.

Why not just point out that both you and they are usually plural in form, but can be used as singular and that they normally take plural forms except when no plural form is available?

I'll stick to my version, thanks. I promise not to correct you but you'd be more thoughtful to consider not everyone agrees that using the singular 'they' is correct.

I'm a pragmatist. The purpose of these rules, especially when communicating via text as opposed to in person, is to be clear about what one is saying. Pronoun misuse is one of the more common reasons people misread posts. So why do you care about using the singular 'they'? It sounds lazy to me.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 04:56 PM

I don't think this is correct. "One" is singular, so it couldn't be one's bread that one is buying if you say that first sentence.

The grammatically correct sentence if you want to convey that meaning would be, IMO:

One goes to the store to buy one's bread.I agree, and the example was specifically to show what confusion arises when using the singular, 'they'.

Skeptic Ginger

10th February 2011, 05:02 PM

I write for a living and I use the singular possessive their. It bothers me, but here's why I do it-- it gets around the difficulty of salting with "his" and "hers" to meet politically correct sensibilities. When it hurts my ear to use it this way, I try to rewrite the sentence without the pronoun. I also avoid "one" as a generic identifier, as in, "One orders the chowder with an expectation that there will be no bones."

Rephrasing a sentence will generally solve all problems.This source (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/595/01/) addresses the problem:NOTE: Many people find the construction "his or her" wordy, so if it is possible to use a plural noun as your antecedent so that you can use "they" as your pronoun, it may be wise to do so. If you do use a singular noun and the context makes the gender clear, then it is permissible to use just "his" or "her" rather than "his or her."I use his/her. It feels more like one word to me than his or her. I don't know what English experts think of the practice.

marplots

10th February 2011, 05:41 PM

I write for a living and I use the singular possessive their. It bothers me.

Why does it bother you?

Because somewhere I was told about the rule against it. I still do it.

brodski

10th February 2011, 11:19 PM

I'll stick to my version, thanks. I promise not to correct you but you'd be more thoughtful to consider not everyone agrees that using the singular 'they' is correct.

I understand that not everyone considers it correct, but when you look at the evidence of use, by the best, the most formal and the most prestigious writers throughout the history of modern English (and before) I feel quite confident in correcting them. Nobody has to use singular they, but going to lengths to avoid it, or feeling guilty about using it is downright silly.

Dave Rogers

11th February 2011, 03:11 AM

"Any" includes the possibility of no one or someone.

"Some" excludes the possibility of no one.

Yes, I think that sums it up well. So, to give another example, suppose I'm doing a job and some other people are watching. If I ask, "Can anyone help me with this?", I'm asking whether there is a person or persons among the onlookers who is able and prepared to help me, and by implication requesting them to help; it may be that none of them is able to help. However, if I ask, "Can someone help me with this?" I'm making a specific request that one or more of them should come and help me, regardless of whether they have the skills or the inclination.

Dave

Guybrush Threepwood

11th February 2011, 03:16 AM

Doesn't that just apply to the ones from Muskogee? I always assumed the rest were wacked out hippies.

Or people who sang about cornfields.Hippies were never called Okies.

Did you hear a whoosh! as you typed that?

Ethan Thane Athen

11th February 2011, 03:17 AM

Some people hold that there is a hard and fast distinction between disinterested and uninterested.
Under this distinction, disinterested is used to mean impartial, or not having an “interest” or “stake” in the outcome of something. For example, “the moderation here would be much better if all moderators were anonymous, disinterested, Danes.”
Uninterested means that someone does not care about something, they are not interested by that thing.

If I were on trial I would want a disinterested judge and jury, but would hate to have an uninterested one.

In reality the distinction has never been that hard and fast, and we are swinging back to a period where the terms are used more interchangeably than they have in the recent past, but some people care deeply about the distinction.

Excellent, thank you. I tend to use 'disinterested' because it 'sounds' better to me ('uninterested' always sounds a bit clumsy) but I wasn't really aware of the distinction. I am now :).

brodski

11th February 2011, 03:32 AM

Excellent, thank you. I tend to use 'disinterested' because it 'sounds' better to me ('uninterested' always sounds a bit clumsy) but I wasn't really aware of the distinction. I am now :).

Just to confuse matters, and to underline the point about language change, when the terms entered English (at roughly the same point in the early 17th centaury) they were used the other way round.

Aepervius

11th February 2011, 04:36 AM

Are you implying it is never correct to use the lower case g with the word, god? I hope not.

No I was just making a little joke at expense of the 12 + pages thread on whether writing god with a little g is belittling.

It fell flat as usual with most of my joke. I think I can see a trend here :).

DavidS

11th February 2011, 12:04 PM

Dead is an adjective, Death is a noun.
Good thing, too. If it were the other way around, any loud noise might wake the dead to come strangle you with a death grip. Oh, wait...

drkitten

11th February 2011, 12:13 PM

I don't think this is correct. "One" is singular, so it couldn't be one's bread that one is buying if you say that first sentence.

"Their" is a gender neutral third person singular pronoun.

Some prescriptivist grammarians would claim otherwise. They are wrong.

Jon.

11th February 2011, 03:24 PM

This reminds me of two of my pet media use peeves. Newscasters constantly refer to extortion as blackmail. Drives me nuts they don't know the difference. And why do so few reporters know the difference between a virus and a bacteria?

And why do they not understand that bacteria is the plural form of bacterium? :p

(Same goes for data, media, and probably several others I can't think of now.)

brodski

11th February 2011, 03:34 PM

(Same goes for data, media, and probably several others I can't think of now.)

Agenda? :p

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2011, 04:39 PM

I understand that not everyone considers it correct, but when you look at the evidence of use, by the best, the most formal and the most prestigious writers throughout the history of modern English (and before) I feel quite confident in correcting them. Nobody has to use singular they, but going to lengths to avoid it, or feeling guilty about using it is downright silly.
Feeling guilty? My my. You may be taking this a tad too seriously. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2011, 04:41 PM

Good thing, too. If it were the other way around, any loud noise might wake the dead to come strangle you with a death grip. Oh, wait...Tunnel vision can be problematic when contemplating some things. :D

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2011, 04:45 PM

"Their" is a gender neutral third person singular pronoun.

Some prescriptivist grammarians would claim otherwise. They are wrong.How do you figure it is singular?

brodski

11th February 2011, 07:16 PM

Feeling guilty? My my. You may be taking this a tad too seriously. ;)

You don't think that "feeling bad" and "feeling guilty" are suitably synonymous in this context?

AdMan

11th February 2011, 07:43 PM

How do you figure it is singular?

I agree. "Their" cannot be singular.

drkitten

11th February 2011, 07:58 PM

How do you figure it is singular?

Widespread usage patterns. Check the OED, or any of the large-scale historic corpora.

drkitten

11th February 2011, 07:59 PM

I agree. "Their" cannot be singular.

Shrug. You're wrong. When a prescriptive grammarian states that "their" cannot be singular, they are ignoring literally centuries of widespread usage and therefore their opinion is without foundation.

Doghouse Reilly

11th February 2011, 08:08 PM

Shrug. You're wrong. When a prescriptive grammarian states that "their" cannot be singular, they are ignoring literally centuries of widespread usage and therefore their opinion is without foundation.

Would you use "their" in the singular form if you were writing an academic paper?

By the way, I agree with you and this is a pet peeve of mine, but have been concerned about actually using it in papers due to the widespread perception that it is incorrect.

drkitten

11th February 2011, 08:25 PM

Would you use "their" in the singular form if you were writing an academic paper?

Probably not; I dislike inanimacy in academic writing. If I need an unnamed agent, I tend to name them as named agents are more easily remembered.

I consider it to be poor writing style for the same reason that passive voice is poor writing style, but poor writing isn't "incorrect."

By the way, I agree with you and this is a pet peeve of mine, but have been concerned about actually using it in papers due to the widespread perception that it is incorrect.

If your use of pronouns is the worst thing that the referees can say about your paper, you're Lady Luck's own favorite child.

AdMan

11th February 2011, 08:26 PM

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2011, 10:07 PM

Widespread usage patterns. Check the OED, or any of the large-scale historic corpora.We just discussed this. Yes, some sources say the singular they is acceptable and other sources say it isn't. End of story.

brodski

11th February 2011, 11:08 PM

We just discussed this. Yes, some sources say the singular they is acceptable and other sources say it isn't. End of story.

Well no, it's not the end of the story. You can then look at the actual evidence. The evidence shows that singular they is used by the best writers and in the most formal settings, and has been used in such a way for hundreds of years.

If some sources started to say that plural they is not acceptable would you argue that there is some real controversy over using plural they, or would you conclude that some of the sources are wrong and we should continue to use they as we always have done?

Skeptic Ginger

11th February 2011, 11:24 PM

Well no, it's not the end of the story. You can then look at the actual evidence. The evidence shows that singular they is used by the best writers and in the most formal settings, and has been used in such a way for hundreds of years.

If some sources started to say that plural they is not acceptable would you argue that there is some real controversy over using plural they, or would you conclude that some of the sources are wrong and we should continue to use they as we always have done?So the evidence you say supports using the singular they is, lots of people do it.

Lots of people fail to use effect and affect correctly. Does that make the definition of the two words now interchangeable?

SusanB-M1

11th February 2011, 11:25 PM

This reminds me of two of my pet media use peeves. Newscasters constantly refer to extortion as blackmail. Drives me nuts they don't know the difference. And why do so few reporters know the difference between a virus and a bacteria?
Ah, yes! Agreed!

<tangent question>I wonder - are there university courses in English which include a thorough, comprehensive section on grammar?

brodski

11th February 2011, 11:33 PM

So the evidence you say supports using the singular they is, lots of people do it.

Lots of people fail to use ehttp://www.randi.org/ffect and affect correctly. Does that make the definition of the two words now interchangeable?

Not just lost of people, but lots of educated people using the construction in formal, edited text. The greatest works of literature in the English language use singular they, when faced with that evidence what is the evidence that it is wrong?

On what basis do you think we should judge what is and is not acceptable usage?

And yes, the definitions of affect and effect could become interchangeable, or even switch place just like the words uninterested and disinterested have switched place. This would only happen in the standard dialects once there is a sufficiently large number of people who use the words interchangeably in edited formal text. We are not there yet, we may never be.

SusanB-M1

11th February 2011, 11:37 PM

Excellent, thank you. I tend to use 'disinterested' because it 'sounds' better to me ('uninterested' always sounds a bit clumsy) but I wasn't really aware of the distinction. I am now :).
Ever since I have had a computer, if I'm sitting at it and hear a reporter use 'disinterested' when it should have been 'uninterested', the programme I'm listening to will receive a 'Disgusted of NM' e-mail to point it out!:) I think it is important that 'disinterested' retains its meaning of impartiality.

ETA to add:
Just to confuse matters, and to underline the point about language change, when the terms entered English (at roughly the same point in the early 17th centaury) they were used the other way round.
Interesting - I didn't know that.

Modified

12th February 2011, 12:38 AM

And why do they not understand that bacteria is the plural form of bacterium? :p

(Same goes for data, media, and probably several others I can't think of now.)

I think of data as a mass noun and datum as a non-existent word, as it seems most people do.

Senex

12th February 2011, 02:23 AM

I can answer one :
God - god : when you either want to **** off theist in an immature way, or that you do not care (or know) english grammatic rules.

*run away from the thread wearing an asbestos suit*

I have 12 years of parochial education and know the rules. When I use the lower case g for god it is in no way immature.

No-one.

This one depends on country. The first option doesn't exist in the UK, since we have cheques, not checks. Well, we have checks, but they're not the same as cheques. If you tried passing a check into your chequeing account, the teller would check you, and you might end up being checked out by the police to see why you were checking instead of chequeing your check.

Latter.

What makes me laugh about you people (you people being British in this instance) is how you drop articles. You say, "I'm going to hospital"instead of "I'm going to the hospital." I completely agree. Brevity is good. I hope that catches on here.

brodski

12th February 2011, 02:49 AM

. You say, "I'm going to hospital"instead of "I'm going to the hospital." I completely agree. Brevity is good. I hope that catches on here.

We don't say one instead of the other, they mean different things.
The difference between being in hospital and being in the hospital is like the difference in the US of being in school and being in the school. One gives information about physical location the other gives information about your interaction with an institution.

J Coplen

12th February 2011, 03:03 AM

Senex

12th February 2011, 03:18 AM

We don't say one instead of the other, they mean different things.
The difference between being in hospital and being in the hospital is like the difference in the US of being in school and being in the school. One gives information about physical location the other gives information about your interaction with an institution.

So you rascals have subtleties. That still has no bearing my uncles kept your parents from speaking German. English grammar 101.

brodski

12th February 2011, 03:24 AM

So you rascals have subtleties. That still has no bearing my uncles kept your parents from speaking German. English grammar 101.

I think you just failed linguistics 101 and history 101 simultaneously. Well done. :p

Senex

12th February 2011, 03:42 AM

I think you just failed linguistics 101 and history 101 simultaneously. Well done. :p

Yeah, well spoke from your heated, non-German speaking house.

brodski

12th February 2011, 03:48 AM

Yeah, well spoke from your heated, non-German speaking house.

Meine Wohnung kann Deutsch sprechen.

ddt

12th February 2011, 03:48 AM

one I have never understood is "that" vs. "which"

That's because the "rule" surrounding which to use (in restrictive and non restrictive clauses) was made up out of whole-cloth during the early 19th century, with little regard to how the words are actually used.
It seems as if all the rules I learned about English are challenged here one by one. :)

As to relative pronouns, here's another one I learned: when the pronoun refers to a human, use "who" (or "whom"); otherwise, use "that" or "which". (And yes, you may treat an animal which is particularly dear to you as a human.) However, I've noticed of lately many instances where "that" is used in reference to humans. How's that?

Senex

12th February 2011, 03:58 AM

Meine Wohnung kann Deutsch sprechen.

If that's German for "Americans saved our ass" I'm satisfied.

brodski

12th February 2011, 04:04 AM

As to relative pronouns, here's another one I learned: when the pronoun refers to a human, use "who" (or "whom"); otherwise, use "that" or "which". (And yes, you may treat an animal which is particularly dear to you as a human.) However, I've noticed of lately many instances where "that" is used in reference to humans. How's that?

It's the recency illusion.
At the beginning of the 19th century Fowler noted that the many educated speakers, writing in formal contexts used that and who almost interchangeably (it's rare to see inanimate objects refer to as who), just as people had been doing for centuries. He sought to put a stop to it. He failed.

Over time his irrational peeve has infected some text books on grammar, and so the myth spreads. As many of these books, and the people who write them, tend to like to pretend that they are merely trying to preserve the language rather than actively alter it, they also tend to give the impression the divergence from the forms they prefer are new inventions, rather than the long standing, formally accepted, usages which they in fact are.

You may come across someone that tells you only to use who for people and that for non-people (not to long ago a poster here even claimed that the use of "that" rather than "who" by a fellow poster was an indication of mental illness). They are wrong. All standard dialects of English of which I am aware allow both.

zooterkin

12th February 2011, 04:06 AM

We don't say one instead of the other, they mean different things.
The difference between being in hospital and being in the hospital is like the difference in the US of being in school and being in the school. One gives information about physical location the other gives information about your interaction with an institution.

Indeed. Our very own Tim has gone to hospital. However, if I were to visit him, I would go to the hospital.

brodski

12th February 2011, 04:08 AM

If that's German for "Americans saved our ass" I'm satisfied.

I've been to America and seen some of the people there. It seems that it wasn't just our asses you saved- you seem to have been stockpiling most of the world's supply since at least 1900.

zooterkin

12th February 2011, 04:10 AM

"If A has 200 calories and 10% are from fat, and B has 200 calorise, with 40% being from fat, then A is better for you than B"
Half the EPL speakers here use "Then" in both instances...
I don't recall ever seeing that error.

I've seen it loads of times, but I'm not sure what 'EPL' refers to. Assuming it's English as a Primary Language, then 50% is an overstatement in my experience. I suspect it's more common among Americans as they, at least in some regional accents, don't seem to differentiate between the two words when speaking.

Senex

12th February 2011, 04:41 AM

I've been to America and seen some of the people there. It seems that it wasn't just our asses you saved- you seem to have been stockpiling most of the world's supply since at least 1900.

My ass happens to be brilliant. I'll PM you my ass. You will wish to covet my ass. I won't allow it. It's too special for you.

Guybrush Threepwood

12th February 2011, 05:18 AM

It's the recency illusion.
At the beginning of the 19th century Fowler....

I suppose Milton, Shakespeare, D'Israeli and A. A. Milne all used 19th century to refer to the 1900's as well did they? ;)

brodski

12th February 2011, 07:22 AM

I suppose Milton, Shakespeare, D'Israeli and A. A. Milne all used 19th century to refer to the 1900's as well did they? ;)

Nope, that's what we call an error.
Mea culpa.

marplots

12th February 2011, 07:52 AM

Another set that seems akin to the effect/affect pair is the use of adverse and averse. This pair, along with discrete and discreet, seem to appear in the prose of the literate, making the mistakes even more irritating.

Guybrush Threepwood

12th February 2011, 07:54 AM

And complement and compliment

brodski

12th February 2011, 08:05 AM

Principal and principle.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 08:58 AM

Not just lost of people, but lots of educated people using the construction in formal, edited text. The greatest works of literature in the English language use singular they, when faced with that evidence what is the evidence that it is wrong?

On what basis do you think we should judge what is and is not acceptable usage?

And yes, the definitions of affect and effect could become interchangeable, or even switch place just like the words uninterested and disinterested have switched place. This would only happen in the standard dialects once there is a sufficiently large number of people who use the words interchangeably in edited formal text. We are not there yet, we may never be.
And lots of educated people with expertise in grammar disagree.

You have not moved the ball forward here.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 09:01 AM

I've seen it loads of times, but I'm not sure what 'EPL' refers to. Assuming it's English as a Primary Language, then 50% is an overstatement in my experience. I suspect it's more common among Americans as they, at least in some regional accents, don't seem to differentiate between the two words when speaking.Could just be a common typo. Do we know if the error is in usage or keyboarding?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 09:03 AM

It seems as if all the rules I learned about English are challenged here one by one. :)

As to relative pronouns, here's another one I learned: when the pronoun refers to a human, use "who" (or "whom"); otherwise, use "that" or "which". (And yes, you may treat an animal which is particularly dear to you as a human.) However, I've noticed of lately many instances where "that" is used in reference to humans. How's that?"Which one of those guys said that?"

"That guy", she said, pointing him out.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 09:19 AM

Indeed. Our very own Tim has gone to hospital. However, if I were to visit him, I would go to the hospital.to hospital = hospitalized

I'm trying to figure out if one is a conjugated verb and one an adverb?

brodski

12th February 2011, 09:20 AM

And lots of educated people with expertise in grammar disagree.

Evidence of their expertise in grammar?

The weight of evidence from usage and form academic research is all on the side of singualr they, there is plenty of grammar woo out the on the other side, what they don't have is evidence.

Have some evidence from linguists and literary scholars
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003572.html
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003582.html
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-the2.htm

If you want to argue that English should be other than it is I would ask you what criteria you use to to judge how it should be?

On this wider topic this article is relevant.
http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

Prescriptivists claim that there are certain rules which have authority over us even if they are not respected as correctness conditions in the ordinary usage of anybody. You can tell them, "All writers of English sometimes use pronouns that have genitive noun phrase determiners as antecedents; Shakespeare did; Churchill did; Queen Elizabeth does; you did in your last book, a dozen times" (see here and here for early Language Log posts on this); and they just say, "Well then, I must try even harder, because regardless of what anyone says or writes, the prohibition against genitive antecedents is valid and ought to be respected by all of us." To prescriptivists of this sort, there is just nothing you can say, because they do not acknowledge any circumstances under which they might conceivably find that they are wrong about the language. If they believe infinitives shouldn't be split, it won't matter if you can show that every user of English on the planet has used split infinitives, they'll still say that nonetheless it's just wrong. That's the opposite insanity to "anything that occurs is correct": it says "nothing that occurs is relevant". Both positions are completely nuts. But there is a rather more subtle position in the middle that isn't.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 09:52 AM

Evidence of their expertise in grammar? [snipped more of the same] Yes, some sources say the singular they is acceptable and other sources say it isn't. Ball stays at the line of scrimmage.

brodski

12th February 2011, 10:14 AM

Yes, some sources say the singular they is acceptable and other sources say it isn't. Ball stays at the line of scrimmage.

OK, you have two sides on an argument, how do you determine which is correct.

One side relies on proclamations of right and wrong and appeals to their own authority. One side goes and looks at the actual evidence and bases their conclusion on that.

Which side is the real authority? Which side is correct.

I can point to sources which say that 9/11 is an inside job, that MRR causes autism and that evolution is a hoax and plenty of other sources which disagree, there are "authorities" on both sides. Would you are that those questions are still open for legitimate debate?

RSLancastr

12th February 2011, 10:19 AM

Another one that regularly trips me up (up which regularly trips me?) is laying vs. lying.

SusanB-M1

12th February 2011, 11:03 AM

Another one that regularly trips me up (up which regularly trips me?) is laying vs. lying.
The dapper, intelligent English tutor* I had at Secretarial College used to say, 'hens lay eggs'! I think it is used incorrectly most often when people talk of they had a 'lay down' instead of a 'lie down'. However, as the words do not really cause confusion, I switch off when I hear the wrong one used!

* This tutor instilled in us things like' never use 'inst'. or 'ult.' (no 'open' punctuation then!) for months', 'correct your boss's grammar and be prepared to explain why if challenged'. These things I always did and hoped that I'd be challenged, but never was! Perhaps they just knew I was right!!

gnome

12th February 2011, 11:16 AM

Another one that regularly trips me up (up which regularly trips me?) is laying vs. lying.

Float this one--laying is something you do to something else. Lying (down) is something you do to yourself. Is that a correct distinction?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 12:22 PM

Another one that regularly trips me up (up which regularly trips me?) is laying vs. lying.I keep hearing the news media say, "he pleaded guilty" or a similar version.

I never knew anyone said 'pleaded'. I thought it was pled. Turns out you can use either, I guess.

Jeff Corey

12th February 2011, 12:24 PM

"Graduated college" rather than "graduated from college" always bothers me. I want to ask if English was a requirement. Another one is "Joe and myself graduated college last year."

brodski

12th February 2011, 12:36 PM

"Graduated college" rather than "graduated from college" always bothers me. I want to ask if English was a requirement.

Do you prefer "graduated from college" in the active or passive voice?

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 12:53 PM

OK, you have two sides on an argument, how do you determine which is correct.The world is not always black and white. There are complex answers to many questions.

Is it sceptic or skeptic? Behavior or behaviour? Pediatric or paediatric? Depends on which country you are in as to which is commonly used. The spelling is correct for all these words.

Language evolves. As changes are adopted by popular use, the changes don't automatically become official or formally adopted. And once established, the rules do not remain forever fixed.

All changed rules of language are not officially adopted all at once by all experts in the linguistics field.

One side relies on proclamations of right and wrong and appeals to their own authority. One side goes and looks at the actual evidence and bases their conclusion on that.

Which side is the real authority? Which side is correct.Your evidence does not support your conclusion and you are having trouble seeing why that is.

Common use of a word or use of that word differently than was previously acceptable does not mean the change will be officially adopted and it does not mean the change will be universally adopted, especially all at once.

You presented evidence of common use and some opinions the change has, in that source's opinion, been adopted. But there are plenty of valid sources which don't agree the change should be adopted.

In the past before there was a fuss over gender neutral references, the singular 'he' would have been chosen and the singular 'they' not needed. Perhaps someone will invent heshe as a word and people will drop the singular 'they' in favor of heshe. ;)

I can point to sources which say that 9/11 is an inside job, that MRR causes autism and that evolution is a hoax and plenty of other sources which disagree, there are "authorities" on both sides. Would you are that those questions are still open for legitimate debate?Not valid analogies. There are many answers which are not based on opinion, and many answers which are.

The ball has still not moved.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 01:00 PM

"Graduated college" rather than "graduated from college" always bothers me. I want to ask if English was a requirement. Another one is "Joe and myself graduated college last year."
He went up river. He went up the river.

She went down south. She went down to the South.

We've adopted those phrases but "to hospital" and "graduated college" are not commonly heard here.

Jeff Corey

12th February 2011, 01:06 PM

Modified

12th February 2011, 01:53 PM

Float this one--laying is something you do to something else. Lying (down) is something you do to yourself. Is that a correct distinction?

Now I lie me down to sleep...

Senex

12th February 2011, 01:59 PM

* This tutor instilled in us things like' never use 'inst'. or 'ult.' (no 'open' punctuation then!) for months', 'correct your boss's grammar and be prepared to explain why if challenged'. These things I always did and hoped that I'd be challenged, but never was! Perhaps they just knew I was right!!

You knew you were naughty. I understand :D

I just don't get the feet picture. I'm crazy distracted by legs and bums but feet leave me cold.

brodski

12th February 2011, 02:20 PM

Brodski: Do you prefer "graduated from college" in the active or passive voice?

Ans: It isn't a question of active or passive voice. It's whether "to graduate" is used as a transitive or intransitive verb. Transitive is correct and needs the "from".

I got that, but do people graduate from university or are they graduated?
Which is a case of a preference for the active or passive voice.

brodski

12th February 2011, 02:31 PM

All changed rules of language are not officially adopted all at once by all experts in the linguistics field. you see, this is your problem. You are looking for something that is "officially accepted", I prefer to look at how the best writers use English. The beast writers fro the past six centuries have used singular they, if you want to dismiss this as "common usage" then you are in the crazy position of arguing that "nothing is relevant".

You presented evidence of common use and some opinions the change has, in that source's opinion, been adopted. But there are plenty of valid sources which don't agree the change should be adopted. I presented prestige usage, standard usage and a history of over 6 centuries. It is you who are arguing for a change not me. I am not making an argument from common usage I am making an argument from standard usage. You are making an argument from false authority.

In the past before there was a fuss over gender neutral references, the singular 'he' would have been chosen and the singular 'they' not needed. Perhaps someone will invent heshe as a word and people will drop the singular 'they' in favor of heshe. ;) This is utter bollocks, unless you want to argue that 1526 was a time of political correctness. It has never been nonstandard to use singular they, singular they is not a modern fad, although it is useful for avoiding he/she, that is not why the usage arose.

It is clear that you are refusing to look at the evidence, if the ball has not moved it is because you refuse to even examine your position. Your position appears to be "well some people say it's true so it must be true". It is a textbook case of an appeal to false authority.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 03:07 PM

you see, this is your problem. You are looking for something that is "officially accepted", I prefer to look at how the best writers use English. The beast writers fro the past six centuries have used singular they, if you want to dismiss this as "common usage" then you are in the crazy position of arguing that "nothing is relevant". A preference is not a problem unless your preference is illegal or unethical.

As far as your exaggeration of the acceptance of the singular 'they', there are linguistic experts who disagree with your preference. I'm just the messenger in this case. Take your argument to the English language experts. When you convince them all, get back to me.

zooterkin

12th February 2011, 03:12 PM

A preference is not a problem unless your preference is illegal or unethical.

As far as your exaggeration of the acceptance of the singular 'they', there are linguistic experts who disagree with your preference. I'm just the messenger in this case. Take your argument to the English language experts. When you convince them all, get back to me.

You would say that Shakespeare, Austen and Byron were all incorrect in their usage?

ddt

12th February 2011, 05:42 PM

It's the recency illusion.
<snip explanation>

Thanks for the explanation. As to the recency: I meant recent as in last year or so. I guess that's just an illusion then that I paid attention to it.

"Which one of those guys said that?"

"That guy", she said, pointing him out.
Hm, no, I asked about the use of "that" as a relative pronoun - you use it here as a demonstrative pronoun.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 06:00 PM

You would say that Shakespeare, Austen and Byron were all incorrect in their usage?Nope, not what I said. I said some linguistic experts agree and some don't. I'm not an linguistics expert.

You do know you are are citing as an example of evidence for accepted grammar someone who would be writing, "Wherefore art thou", as the normal way one speaks.

Jeff Corey

12th February 2011, 06:03 PM

I got that, but do people graduate from university or are they graduated?
Which is a case of a preference for the active or passive voice.

No, the original post was about "graduated college" being incorrect. I know the active voice is preferred in some cases, but that is not a hard and fast rule, irrefrickingardless of Strunk and White.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 06:04 PM

....
Hm, no, I asked about the use of "that" as a relative pronoun - you use it here as a demonstrative pronoun.Picky picky. ;)

zooterkin

12th February 2011, 11:06 PM

Nope, not what I said. I said some linguistic experts agree and some don't.

But you are prepared to accept the implication that if the 'experts' who say that the usage is incorrect are right, then those writers who I named, plus many others over centuries, are using the language wrongly?

I'm not an linguistics expert.
Clearly.

You do know you are are citing as an example of evidence for accepted grammar someone who would be writing, "Wherefore art thou", as the normal way one speaks.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the usage may have been correct at one time, but no longer is? If so, at what point did it become 'wrong'? And on what grounds do you choose to ignore Jane Austen and Byron? I'm sure both of them have used words or constructions which are not used in everyday speech now, yet their works, as well as those of Shakespeare are still read and performed daily.

Skeptic Ginger

12th February 2011, 11:26 PM

But you are prepared to accept the implication that if the 'experts' who say that the usage is incorrect are right, then those writers who I named, plus many others over centuries, are using the language wrongly?

Clearly.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the usage may have been correct at one time, but no longer is? If so, at what point did it become 'wrong'? And on what grounds do you choose to ignore Jane Austen and Byron? I'm sure both of them have used words or constructions which are not used in everyday speech now, yet their works, as well as those of Shakespeare are still read and performed daily.

Why must you cherry pick my posts and waste time asking me to repeat myself? Sigh.....

Language evolves. As changes are adopted by popular use, the changes don't automatically become official or formally adopted. And once established, the rules do not remain forever fixed.

All changed rules of language are not officially adopted all at once by all experts in the linguistics field.

Common use of a word or use of that word differently than was previously acceptable does not mean the change will be officially adopted and it does not mean the change will be universally adopted, especially all at once.

Evidence was presented of common use and some opinions the change has, in that source's opinion, been adopted. But there are plenty of valid sources which don't agree the change should be adopted.

So what is it about the shifting sands of language do I need to clarify further? It might be considered anal retentive to demand language have exact right and wrong, black and white rules at any point in time. Likewise, it is anal retentive to insist everything commonly used in language is considered to be within the rules. There are thousands of irregular use of language examples that are not considered proper grammar no matter how common.

"I ain't usin' no stinkin' rules", comes to mind.

zooterkin

12th February 2011, 11:43 PM

Why must you cherry pick my posts and waste time asking me to repeat myself? Sigh.....
What did I cherry pick? I quoted your whole post.

Language evolves. As changes are adopted by popular use, the changes don't automatically become official or formally adopted. And once established, the rules do not remain forever fixed.

All changed rules of language are not officially adopted all at once by all experts in the linguistics field.

Common use of a word or use of that word differently than was previously acceptable does not mean the change will be officially adopted and it does not mean the change will be universally adopted, especially all at once.

Evidence was presented of common use and some opinions the change has, in that source's opinion, been adopted. But there are plenty of valid sources which don't agree the change should be adopted.

So what is it about the shifting sands of language do I need to clarify further? It might be considered anal retentive to demand language have exact right and wrong, black and white rules at any point in time. Likewise, it is anal retentive to insist everything commonly used in language is considered to be within the rules. There are thousands of irregular use of language examples that are not considered proper grammar no matter how common.

"I ain't usin' no stinkin' rules", comes to mind.

"Teach the controversy." Got it.

SusanB-M1

12th February 2011, 11:58 PM

I just don't get the feet picture. I'm crazy distracted by legs and bums but feet leave me cold.
It's very simple, actually! I organise a tap dancing group (Our average age is 71 (well, actually, it's now 72 but that doesn't rhyme!), We tap each week and have such fun, but don't aim for perfection. We learn to work in counts of eight, And though we never demonstrate, Today is an exception. (This last line because I did a little turn at last year's Dorset Humanist Group's July, end-of-year, social gathering!

When I wanted an avatar, Teke very kindly found this picture of tap-shoed feet somewhere, and I've used it ever since. The twinkle on the toes (which I can't see, but which Carole tells me is still there) is thanks to Paul Hoff's skill.

zooterkin

13th February 2011, 12:08 AM

When I wanted an avatar, Teke very kindly found this picture of tap-shoed feet somewhere, and I've used it ever since. The twinkle on the toes (which I can't see, but which Carole tells me is still there) is thanks to Paul Hoff's skill.

I can also confirm your toes are still twinkling, Susan. :) May they continue to do so for many years yet!

SusanB-M1

13th February 2011, 12:19 AM

I can also confirm your toes are still twinkling, Susan. :) May they continue to do so for many years yet!
:D Thank you! I usually set out for my long walk at this time on a Sunday, but it's damp and drizzly, so it'll have to wait.

brodski

13th February 2011, 02:45 AM

Evidence was presented of common use and some opinions the change has, in that source's opinion, been adopted. But there are plenty of valid sources which don't agree the change should be adopted.

You have been corrected on this a number of times.
Common usage was not presented as evidence.
The change in usage we are discussing is not in the direction you think it is.
The change we are disusing is not in the direction you think it is. It is about a few self appointed "linguistic experts" who, while refusing to look at at the evidence, declared a standard, prestige, usage wrong. It's pure linguistic woo.

There are people out there conducting real research into the English language and then there are those for who no evidence matters but who wish to be regarded as "experts". Which side do you think is more credible?

Kid Eager

13th February 2011, 03:00 AM

It's a moot point - not a mute point. My grammar cells used to yell a lot about that error, but now they're mute on the subject.

I've been asked by e-mail if we need more stationary.
I respond "stationary what?"
Reply: "you know - pens, pencils, paper."
"Aren't they normally stationary?"
"huh? what do you mean?"
"Well, when was the last time you saw moving stationery?"
"Listen, do you want pens, pencils or other stationary?"
"I'd like all my stationery to be stationary, please - it makes the stationery easier to find."
"Get you're (sic) own f***ing pens."
"I prefer blue actually, but thanks for the suggestion."
<<< beyond this point it all got a bit silly.....>>>>

brodski

13th February 2011, 03:37 AM

How about the confusion about grammar, diction and orthography?
A spelling or punctuation error is not an error of grammar, confusion between homophones is not (always or even usually) an error of grammar.

ddt

13th February 2011, 04:25 AM

Picky picky. ;)
That's not picky. There's just one singular, distal demonstrative pronoun - that. You might also note that if you change that question to a plural "guys", "that" changes to "those".

Senex

13th February 2011, 06:35 AM

It's very simple, actually! I organise a tap dancing group (Our average age is 71 (well, actually, it's now 72 but that doesn't rhyme!), We tap each week and have such fun, but don't aim for perfection. We learn to work in counts of eight, And though we never demonstrate, Today is an exception. (This last line because I did a little turn at last year's Dorset Humanist Group's July, end-of-year, social gathering!

When I wanted an avatar, Teke very kindly found this picture of tap-shoed feet somewhere, and I've used it ever since. The twinkle on the toes (which I can't see, but which Carole tells me is still there) is thanks to Paul Hoff's skill.

This falls under plausible so I will let it go ;)

Guybrush Threepwood

13th February 2011, 06:38 AM

One goes to the store to buy their bread.
Mary goes to the store to buy their bread.

You know from the second sentence Mary is buying someone else's bread. In the first sentence it could be one's bread or someone else's bread.

Isn't 'one' like 'it' in that it doesn't have a possessive apostrophe? Otherwise one might be unclear about whether one was talking about ones stuff or the things one's doing at the moment?

Ever since I have had a computer, if I'm sitting at it and hear a reporter use 'disinterested' when it should have been 'uninterested', the programme I'm listening to will receive a 'Disgusted of NM' e-mail to point it out!:) I think it is important that 'disinterested' retains its meaning of impartiality.

Are you covering 'fulsome' and 'enormity' too? Or should I keep sending mails for them?

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2011, 10:31 AM

That's not picky. There's just one singular, distal demonstrative pronoun - that. You might also note that if you change that question to a plural "guys", "that" changes to "those".Did you miss the ;) ?

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2011, 10:32 AM

Isn't 'one' like 'it' in that it doesn't have a possessive apostrophe? Otherwise one might be unclear about whether one was talking about ones stuff or the things one's doing at the moment?...Just a typo. I would have put the apostrophe there, yes.

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2011, 10:37 AM

You have been corrected on this a number of times.
Common usage was not presented as evidence.
The change in usage we are discussing is not in the direction you think it is.
The change we are disusing is not in the direction you think it is. It is about a few self appointed "linguistic experts" who, while refusing to look at at the evidence, declared a standard, prestige, usage wrong. It's pure linguistic woo.

There are people out there conducting real research into the English language and then there are those for who no evidence matters but who wish to be regarded as "experts". Which side do you think is more credible?Give it up, B, unless you can convince the people who disagree that the singular they is acceptable.

You have been corrected repeatedly. Here, let me bold and capitalize the issue you keep ignoring: I AM NOT THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. I have merely said I agree with the people making the claim that the singular they is often confusing and best avoided.

brodski

13th February 2011, 10:51 AM

Give it up, B, unless you can convince the people who disagree that the singular they is acceptable.

You have been corrected repeatedly. Here, let me bold and capitalize the issue you keep ignoring: I AM NOT THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM. I have merely said I agree with the people making the claim that the singular they is often confusing and best avoided.

And you are clearly and objectively wrong.
Good writing is defined by the usage of the best writers. The best writers for the past six centuries are on my side on this matter.

The fact that not everyone agrees with me is immaterial, all the evidence is on my side.

I don like the dodge of "I'm not making the claim I just agree with the claim", do you let anti-vaxers, creationists and holocaust deniers off with that dodge? They're often not making a claim, they're just agreeing with it...

ddt

13th February 2011, 12:47 PM

Did you miss the ;) ?
I saw it, let's say I misinterpreted it. ;)

Jeff Corey

13th February 2011, 07:15 PM

I teach students to write lab reports according to the American Psychological Association Publication Manual rules, which consider "data" and "they" as plurals requiring plural verbs.
They only one that they find difficult is "data", because of its wide use as a singular noun. It used to be that scientists, at least, understood that it wasn't. I blame the change on the computer scientists. Check out this article by Bill Gates that an editor at an APA journal would redact. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/11-00intelligenti.mspx

Modified

13th February 2011, 08:03 PM

They only one that they find difficult is "data", because of its wide use as a singular noun. It used to be that scientists, at least, understood that it wasn't. I blame the change on the computer scientists. Check out this article by Bill Gates that an editor at an APA journal would redact. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/11-00intelligenti.mspx

http://nxg.me.uk/note/2005/singular-data/

Jeff Corey

13th February 2011, 08:31 PM

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2011, 09:13 PM

And you are clearly and objectively wrong.
Good writing is defined by the usage of the best writers. The best writers for the past six centuries are on my side on this matter.

The fact that not everyone agrees with me is immaterial, all the evidence is on my side.

I don like the dodge of "I'm not making the claim I just agree with the claim", do you let anti-vaxers, creationists and holocaust deniers off with that dodge? They're often not making a claim, they're just agreeing with it...Unbelievable. You keep insisting you are right when experts in the field do not agree. I think they call that hubris.

Skeptic Ginger

13th February 2011, 09:15 PM

....

The point was that you write for your market. If it's an APA journal, data is plural. For Wired, it's singular. If the target uses the Chicago Manual of style, check out the latest version for "their" because they have changed it back and forth a few times.Maybe they'll get it from your post. Mine is falling on deaf eyes.

zooterkin

13th February 2011, 10:18 PM

I agree with the people making the claim that the singular they is often confusing and best avoided.

Can you quantify that 'often'? There are many constructions and usages in English which can be ambiguous; should we avoid using all of them, or should we rather aim to always be as clear as possible? A particular phrase may well be ambiguous in isolation, but in context it is usually clear what is meant.

Modified

13th February 2011, 10:30 PM

The point was that you write for your market. If it's an APA journal, data is plural. For Wired, it's singular. If the target uses the Chicago Manual of style, check out the latest version for "their" because they have changed it back and forth a few times.

For a journal that insists "data" is plural, I'd probably try to avoid the word entirely, since I know the plural usage will feel awkward to most of the readers.

brodski

13th February 2011, 11:24 PM

Unbelievable. You keep insisting you are right when experts in the field do not agree. I think they call that hubris.

And you, continually, refuse to look at both the evidence and the arguments.
I think they call this "par for the course".

brodski

13th February 2011, 11:28 PM

Very impressive, a new fallacy: Appeal to Anonymous Authority.

The point was that you write for your market. If it's an APA journal, data is plural. For Wired, it's singular. If the target uses the Chicago Manual of style, check out the latest version for "their" because they have changed it back and forth a few times.

If there is a particular style guide which you need to use in a particular case then of course you use that, but that is a matter of house style and quite different from the point I've been making in the posts which SG has been responding to but clearly not reading.

Skeptic Ginger

14th February 2011, 01:11 AM

If there is a particular style guide which you need to use in a particular case then of course you use that, but that is a matter of house style and quite different from the point I've been making in the posts which SG has been responding to but clearly not reading."House style"? Can you even find a definition for that?

Dave Rogers

14th February 2011, 01:23 AM

"House style"? Can you even find a definition for that?

Style Guide:

A set of standards for a specific organization is often known as "house style".

Seems a fairly common usage to me.

Dave

GlennB

14th February 2011, 01:32 AM

"House style"? Can you even find a definition for that?

Let me google that for you .... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22house+style%22)

(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22house+style%22)

Jeff Corey

14th February 2011, 04:37 AM

For a journal that insists "data" is plural, I'd probably try to avoid the word entirely, since I know the plural usage will feel awkward to most of the readers.

Probably not, since the readers will have been trained by people using the same publication manual. I work in a science building with other people in the sciences. A common phrase starts, "The data were analyzed..."

Jeff Corey

14th February 2011, 04:42 AM

Let me google that for you .... (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22house+style%22)

(http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22house+style%22)

First Google hit, "In this house style guide, you'll find links to facts, photos, diagrams, and building plans for the most popular house styles in North America and other ..."

zooterkin

14th February 2011, 05:00 AM

First Google hit, "In this house style guide, you'll find links to facts, photos, diagrams, and building plans for the most popular house styles in North America and other ..."

Interesting, I see that as the second hit on the google.com site, and not at all on the google.co.uk site.
google.com
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/158694d59270154964.jpg

google.co.uk:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/158694d592710b6519.jpg

Either way, "house style" is a commonly used term that doesn't seem at all unusual to me.

ETA: Given the search results above, perhaps it is a term more common in the UK than the US.

Senex

14th February 2011, 06:10 AM

And you are clearly and objectively wrong.
Good writing is defined by the usage of the best writers. The best writers for the past six centuries are on my side on this matter.

The fact that not everyone agrees with me is immaterial, all the evidence is on my side.

Unbelievable. You keep insisting you are right when experts in the field do not agree. I think they call that hubris.

We haven't had such a good cat fight in many years :)

TragicMonkey

14th February 2011, 06:50 AM

We haven't had such a good cat fight in many years :)

I think you mean "Ones hasn't such a goodly catfight in many year's.".

brodski

14th February 2011, 07:01 AM

We haven't had such a good cat fight in many years :)
What can I say, I miss Claus.

Dave Rogers

14th February 2011, 07:02 AM

I think you mean "Ones hasn't such a goodly catfight in many year's.".

Or maybe, "Ain't bin none catfights like this'n in foive year'n, roight bor?"

Dave

gnome

14th February 2011, 07:38 AM

Now I lie me down to sleep...

Ahh incorrect usage here.... by using a reflexive form, adding "me" turns the self into an object (with possible philosophical implications, but nevermind for now) and thus "lay" would be correct.

My maxim may better be clarified: A subject of a sentence lies, one lays an object of a sentence.

The blanket was lying on top of the sofa. I lay the blanket on top of the sofa.

TragicMonkey

14th February 2011, 07:56 AM

A subject of a sentence lies, one lays an object of a sentence.

Sounds like in both cases you're talking about someone who got a prison sentence for perjury.

Comrade Raptor

14th February 2011, 08:14 AM

Tell you what Bell, you have a better grasp of English than many born with the language.

That's definitely true. I wandered in here thinking it would be an esoteric grammar thread, read the first post and got confused, and then had to look below your avatar to realize English was a second language.

gnome

14th February 2011, 08:19 AM

Sounds like in both cases you're talking about someone who got a prison sentence for perjury.

Perjury, hell... I did gigoogity that girl. I geschmoigiddied her geflavaty with my googus, and I am NOT sorry :P

Guybrush Threepwood

14th February 2011, 08:41 AM

The blanket was lying on top of the sofa. I lay the blanket on top of the sofa.

The blanket lay on top of the sofa, waiting for the dawn...

Skeptic Ginger

14th February 2011, 09:59 AM

First Google hit, "In this house style guide, you'll find links to facts, photos, diagrams, and building plans for the most popular house styles in North America and other ...":D Actually, I added "definition" to the search and found what I needed.

Never heard the term before but I see it is used.

Skeptic Ginger

14th February 2011, 10:01 AM

What can I say, I miss Claus.Now I get it, you are channelling Larson.

GlennB

14th February 2011, 10:13 AM

Question:

"House style"? Can you even find a definition for that?

Answer:

Jeff Corey could not, apparently being unable to scan the first screen of Google (whichever) hits for clues.

First Google hit, "In this house style guide, you'll find links to facts, photos, diagrams, and building plans for the most popular house styles in North America and other ..."

Are you trolling or just dense?

gnome

14th February 2011, 11:10 AM

The blanket lay on top of the sofa, waiting for the dawn...

Ya got me. Anyone want to school me on this one? :)

Jeff Corey

14th February 2011, 11:17 AM

Question:

Answer:

Jeff Corey could not, apparently being unable to scan the first screen of Google (whichever) hits for clues.

Are you trolling or just dense?

You might want to consider being less rude and insulting.

Senex

14th February 2011, 12:29 PM

You might want to consider being less rude and insulting.

Yeah! Especially with a girl flirting with me :mad:

Except if the vitriol is completely aimed at someone named Jeff; I can live with that.

Improper use of a semicolon. The story of my life

GlennB

14th February 2011, 12:43 PM

First Google hit, "In this house style guide, you'll find links to facts, photos, diagrams, and building plans for the most popular house styles in North America and other ..."

You might want to consider being less rude and insulting.

All google searches on that phrase show, very clearly on the first page, the meaning that Skeptic Ginger was questioning. You might want to avoid cherry-picking one hit that seems to support an absurd point of view. Otherwise people might think you are trolling or being thick. Why did you do that?

Guybrush Threepwood

15th February 2011, 03:36 AM

The blanket lay on top of the sofa, waiting for the dawn...

Ya got me. Anyone want to school me on this one? :)

I would say 'lay' is transitive, 'lie' intransitive, but the past tense of 'lie' is 'lay' which is indistinguishable, except in context from the present tense of 'lay'.

This site (http://web.ku.edu/~edit/lie.html)agrees with me, although I'm not sure that there are many people who would use the past participles correctly, ('lain' sounds archaic to me) and I'm sure that there will be regional differences throughout the English speaking world.

gnome

15th February 2011, 07:43 AM

I would say 'lay' is transitive, 'lie' intransitive, but the past tense of 'lie' is 'lay' which is indistinguishable, except in context from the present tense of 'lay'.

This site (http://web.ku.edu/%7Eedit/lie.html)agrees with me, although I'm not sure that there are many people who would use the past participles correctly, ('lain' sounds archaic to me) and I'm sure that there will be regional differences throughout the English speaking world.

Wait, if "lay" is past tens of "lie", what is "laid"?

But this does make sense to me.

zooterkin

15th February 2011, 08:26 AM

So, are we saying that Bob Zimmerman should have sung, "Lie, Lady, Lie", and The Strawbs, "Lie Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvFb3UME6PM)"? :)

Dave Rogers

15th February 2011, 08:27 AM

So, are we saying that Bob Zimmerman should have sung, "Lie, Lady, Lie",

With his voice, can you be sure he didn't?

Dave

brodski

15th February 2011, 08:30 AM

Wait, if "lay" is past tens of "lie", what is "laid"?

It's one of the best albums of the 1990s.

gnome

15th February 2011, 09:25 AM

:)

I wrote it wrong anyway... laid is past tense of lay, ok... how about lied... "he ate a good meal and then he lied down". -- which is the correct past tense of lie and what's the difference?

Dave Rogers

15th February 2011, 09:50 AM

:)

I wrote it wrong anyway... laid is past tense of lay, ok... how about lied... "he ate a good meal and then he lied down". -- which is the correct past tense of lie and what's the difference?

Paste tense of the wrong word; "He ate a good meal, but lied about who paid for it" would be correct.

To lie, as in to adopt a recumbent position, seems to have two interchangeable past tenses. "Lay" and "laid" are both acceptable - I wouldn't fault either "He lay down on the bed" or "he laid down on the bed", although I suspect the former is more correct. However, "laid" is the only past tense of "lay", as in "he laid the blanket on the chest".

Dave