Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Big Swifty, 26 Nov 2017.
The Guardian's style guide would remove an unnecessary "that", even when it makes it harder to read.
That's not Yoda-ese.
"Not put up with some things I will." Or "Put up with some things I will not." Or "Do I not like that."
The reception at my son's school had a sign stating that they would not telephone for "taxi's" for students. What chance do we have?
Yeah it's not really a big deal as long as it's clear as far as I'm concerned (This extends to the rest of this thread too in that I'm not bothered if someone uses to instead of too if it's obvious which was meant). I've often been fascinated by how that (had to include one) there's a lot of grammar that can go one way or another; I learnt the other day that double spacing after a full stop is used commonly amongst some typographers and that certainly caught me out! I suppose it comes down to one's own style (I use brackets a lot to either add my own specific opinion or to try and clarify my own points when others might just use i.e [and others both!]) which I think helps keep things from becoming a bit monotonous.
Although you've helped me to make my point as far as I'm concerned too which I appreciate. There's probably some English boffin out there who's scoffing with disgust at either mine or the Style's approach in the same way as some people become frustrated by other people mixing up there and their.
Although between you and me I'd dread the day a City supporting, English literature professor starts a thread moaning about the improper use of the subjunctive haha!
I should add that I believe a lot of the more subtle grammatical inconsistencies we have stem from the mish mash nature of the English language. Romance languages (Latin and its descendants such as French, Spanish etc.) tend to be much clearer in how they're set out grammatically.
I went on a letter writing course with work. The theme was they wanted the writing style to be less business orientated to more informal. To such an extent that they wanted to end a letter, "Kind regards". Now I don't mind writing less formally to customers, if that's what they want, but that sign off will never be seen in a letter I write. Maybe I am old fashioned.
I do, actually, have an problem with understanding incorrect spelling; it does make it difficult for me to follow so I often give up on the worst posts. (Please don't trawl back through mine :)). I think I have a touch of OCD about it.
Assuming "should of" originated as text abbreviation "shd of" why not "shd av"? I cannot believe that in 20 years so many people have been corrupted by this. It's not bad grammar, it's beyond reason.
No it would have come from people hearing 'should've' as 'should of' and being what I suppose is negligent towards figuring out the truth. They do sound very similar after all. From there I imagine it snowballed a bit with more people making the error and thus fewer people being corrected, and so the cycle continues.
I wonder what age they learn about these things in school. Any teachers out there who can enlighten us?
We don't really sing 'it should ov been ten", do we? The vowels virtually disappear into "shuduv" so that doesn't explain why anyone would write "should of". I'd tolerate "should av" as that at least makes sense.
Glad to see this thread. I hate spelling errors and use of wrong words. I must admit I'm not that good in grammar though.