On 06/06/2013 02:17 PM, Shay wrote:
> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.

OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their", and "pacific" instead of 
"specific".

The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something I've 
never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated words!

Post a reply to this message

On 6/6/2013 10:17 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their", and "pacific" instead of
> "specific".
>
> The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something I've
> never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated words!

Thats just you're open yam, man.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:17:45 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 06/06/2013 02:17 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.
> 
> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their", and "pacific" instead of
> "specific".
> 
> The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something I've
> never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated words!

It's people who write what they think they hear rather than proper 
English.

"Let me axe you somethin'....."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something I've
>> never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated words!
>
> It's people who write what they think they hear rather than proper
> English.
>
> "Let me axe you somethin'....."

Heh. And here I was thinking that we educate people so that they know 
better...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:17:45 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> On 06/06/2013 02:17 PM, Shay wrote:
>> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.
>
> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their", and "pacific" instead of  
> "specific".
>
> The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something I've  
> never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated words!

I had a boss once who used pacific instead of specific.... :P

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:05:23 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> The former is a moderately common mistake. The latter is something
>>> I've never seen before in my life. They're two utterly unrelated
>>> words!
>>
>> It's people who write what they think they hear rather than proper
>> English.
>>
>> "Let me axe you somethin'....."
> 
> Heh. And here I was thinking that we educate people so that they know
> better...

People have to want to be educated - if they don't have the interest, 
they're not going to learn no matter how long they spend in school.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> The copy was also littered with 
> sentences that ended with prepositions.

Why is that bad?

The rule to avoid ending sentences with prepositions in English is
completely artificial, invented by one person (you can even find his
name if you search) for a textbook, which got just blindly copied by
other textbook with no rationale or any kind of linguistics research
behind it. It just became a popular notion that everybody blindly
repeated, without any kind of reasoning behind it.

That in itself wouldn't be a bad thing if it really described how actual
fluent English works. However, it doesn't. There are countless examples
where ending a sentence in a preposition is completely fluent,
understandable and appropriate. There's basically nothing wrong with it.

The rule is completely artificial and has no reason to exist.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their"

Some people write "your" when they really mean "you're". This mistake is
kind of understandable.

However, I have seen people consistently write "you're" when they really
mean "your". *That* mistake I have hard time comprehending.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:32:25 -0400, Warp wrote:

> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> The copy was also littered with sentences that ended with prepositions.
> 
> Why is that bad?
> 
> The rule to avoid ending sentences with prepositions in English is
> completely artificial, invented by one person (you can even find his
> name if you search) for a textbook, which got just blindly copied by
> other textbook with no rationale or any kind of linguistics research
> behind it. It just became a popular notion that everybody blindly
> repeated, without any kind of reasoning behind it.
> 
> That in itself wouldn't be a bad thing if it really described how actual
> fluent English works. However, it doesn't. There are countless examples
> where ending a sentence in a preposition is completely fluent,
> understandable and appropriate. There's basically nothing wrong with it.
> 
> The rule is completely artificial and has no reason to exist.

One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.  
The purpose of any such rule is for writing to be made clear.  So the 
problem that James is referring to isn't necessarily "ending sentences 
with a preposition", but "the writing is unclear because the sentences 
are ended with a preposition." - that is, the problem is that the writing 
is unclear.

And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.

Prepositions are used to describe the relationship between two things - 
and the second thing in the comparison follows the preposition.  The idea 
behind not ending sentences with a preposition has to do with the idea 
that if you're comparing two objects, you have to have two objects.

But it's /not/ a "rule", because there are obvious cases where rewriting 
to avoid ending with a preposition results in a very contrived sentence.

The guideline is that in general, ending sentences with a preposition 
tends to be unclear.  If you're describing something that is with 
something else, you have to generally state what the object is with.  Or 
above, below, beside, etc.

But prepositions also have other uses, which is why it's not a "rule" but 
a "guideline".  But those tend to be exceptions.

"The strike came from above." - yes, that's perfectly clear, because 
"above", while describing a relationship (and as a preposition), the 
context in the sentence makes it clear that the target was below where 
the attack came from.

^^^^ And that last sentence, "from" also is clear because of the context.

"The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a 
preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.  (And 
that last sentence isn't a sentence fragment because the context makes it 
clear that the "what" that is beside the apple is the object that is 
missing.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:36:18 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> OK. Now explain "there" instead of "their"
> 
> Some people write "your" when they really mean "you're". This mistake is
> kind of understandable.

Not really.  If you know that "you're" is a contraction of "you are", 
it's very easy to see when it's being misused:

"I think your wrong."

"I think *you are* wrong."

The error is clear as day - you're making a contraction and not using the 
punctuation that's necessary in a contraction.

> However, I have seen people consistently write "you're" when they really
> mean "your". *That* mistake I have hard time comprehending.

The one that is understandable, I think, is "its" - the possessive form 
of "it".  There is no possessive form of "it" that has an apostrophe in 
it, but most other nouns are made possessive by adding an apostrophe:

"John's truck broke down."

"The flywheel's spring broke."

"Everybody's wrong about this."

"The firefighters' truck drifted around the corner."

(The latter being possessive plural)

But "its" is possessive and "it's" is /only/ ever a contraction of "it 
is".

Jim

Post a reply to this message