Today a CV landed on my boss' desk. While reading it, we came across the 
following phrase:

   "...designing B-spoke software for there pacific needs."

I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic 
English words so badly wrong?

Needless to say, we didn't bother interviewing this person.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:54:09 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
> English words so badly wrong?

Must've been educated in the US. ;)

(I had someone send me an e-mail today that used "no" instead of "know" - 
seriously....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 05/06/2013 10:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:54:09 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
>> English words so badly wrong?
>
> Must've been educated in the US. ;)
>
> (I had someone send me an e-mail today that used "no" instead of "know" -
> seriously....)

Maybe. But that's an email. We're talking about a CV here - a document 
that is a) only a page long, and b) should have been proof-read to 
within an inch of it's life many, many times over. WHAT THE HELL?!

We had another amusing one, actually... Instead of listing all the 
skills he DOES have, he listed all the skills he DOES NOT have. (??!)

In fact, on closer inspection, what he *actually* did was make a 
bullet-point for each requirement in the job spec. It's just that most 
of them here "no experience with X", which made it seems like a list of 
non-skills.

My boss nearly replied to the job agent pointing out that the CV had 
missed out the non-skill of "CV writing"...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:27:45 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 05/06/2013 10:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:54:09 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get
>>> basic English words so badly wrong?
>>
>> Must've been educated in the US. ;)
>>
>> (I had someone send me an e-mail today that used "no" instead of "know"
>> -
>> seriously....)
> 
> Maybe. But that's an email. We're talking about a CV here - a document
> that is a) only a page long, and b) should have been proof-read to
> within an inch of it's life many, many times over. WHAT THE HELL?!

The person who sent it is a marketing person - a field that should have 
people in it who write what they mean and need to communicate effectively.

But yeah, on a CV is particularly bad.  One thing I was taught to look 
for when reviewing applications was sloppy handwriting, too.

> We had another amusing one, actually... Instead of listing all the
> skills he DOES have, he listed all the skills he DOES NOT have. (??!)

That's kinda weird.

> In fact, on closer inspection, what he *actually* did was make a
> bullet-point for each requirement in the job spec. It's just that most
> of them here "no experience with X", which made it seems like a list of
> non-skills.

Ah, that makes more sense (though still a bad thing to do).  When doing a 
cover letter and a custom CV, it's generally recommended that you tie 
your CV to the job requirements by using key words and phrases from the 
job posting.

So maybe he was trying to "beat" the automated system.  But in a very 
ineffective way.

> My boss nearly replied to the job agent pointing out that the CV had
> missed out the non-skill of "CV writing"...

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 06/05/2013 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So maybe he was trying to "beat" the automated system.  But in a very
> ineffective way.

automated systems ... don't get me started!!!!

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:32:14 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:

> On 06/05/2013 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So maybe he was trying to "beat" the automated system.  But in a very
>> ineffective way.
> 
> automated systems ... don't get me started!!!!

Someone once suggested that it would be interesting to include the job 
posting in small white-on-white text in a CV/Resume that was submitted.  
I hate to think, though, what the employer's reaction would be if they 
discovered it....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2013 12:32 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
> automated systems ... don't get me started!!!!

I think I may have mentioned before, how all job adverts seem to be 
appallingly badly written. Like, if my CV was written as badly as the 
job adverts, nobody would ever hire me.

Well, now I think I know why. We recently placed an advert on some job 
site. The text we have the agent was written just fine. But, for no 
defined reason, the agent went and changed a bunch of text, so now the 
grammar and punctuation is all screwed up. They also removed a critical 
legal requirement from the text.

We yelled at them to change it back, or at least fix the more glaring 
errors. They changed it a bit, but it was still broken. So we yelled at 
them some more, and managed to get them to fix a few more things. But 
eventually we let the advert go out still broken, because it was just 
too difficult to convince the agent to fix it properly.

I can't even begin to comprehend why the agent changed the text in the 
first place. One of the guys outs point that the agent's registered 
company address is actually a residential estate though...

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2013 03:51 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 06/06/2013 12:32 AM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> automated systems ... don't get me started!!!!
>
> I think I may have mentioned before, how all job adverts seem to be
> appallingly badly written.

I recently did a bit of web page design, and spent more time being the 
grammar police than I did on the actual layout and style-sheet. The 
grammar was to say the least atrocious ... for example a six clause 
comma separated list, that I cleaned up with a well crafted lead in 
sentence, followed by a bullet list. The copy was also littered with 
sentences that ended with prepositions. I was shocked, considering what 
the web-site was selling! Ms Bonham, my 5th grade English teacher, must 
be rolling over in her grave.

Post a reply to this message

Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.

-Shay

"Jim Henderson"  wrote in message news:51afab72$1@news.povray.org... 

On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:54:09 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> I don't even know where to start with this. How could someone get basic
> English words so badly wrong?

Must've been educated in the US. ;)

(I had someone send me an e-mail today that used "no" instead of "know" - 
seriously....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:17:01 -0500, Shay wrote:

> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.

That's true enough.  The first time I heard it, I had no idea what it 
meant - but most Americans wouldn't bother to look it up or ask, 
either. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

On 06/06/2013 06:32 PM, Warp wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> The copy was also littered with
>> sentences that ended with prepositions.
>
> Why is that bad?

I think the other Jim covered it quite well.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.

bingo!!!!

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:

> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
> 
> bingo!!!!

Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was 
good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2013 08:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
>>
>> bingo!!!!
>
> Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was
> good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)
>
> Jim
>

LOL ... yes I could have easily gotten off on a rant as well, but I'm 
burnt on the subject. Besides ... you were making my point, so thanks.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:55:08 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:

> On 06/06/2013 08:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:40:12 -0400, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/06/2013 07:25 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> And a lack of clarity in writing is a *huge* problem.
>>>
>>> bingo!!!!
>>
>> Having spent the last two days trying to get some writing clear, it was
>> good to be able to let *that* out of my system. ;)
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
> LOL ... yes I could have easily gotten off on a rant as well, but I'm
> burnt on the subject. Besides ... you were making my point, so thanks.

Everybody wins. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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:

For me at least when I'm typing quickly I sometimes type words that 
sound the same or similar to what I'm meant to be typing. Mostly I catch 
these during a quick re-read but sometimes they slip through. As well as 
the obvious homophones I've put "to" instead of "do", "works" instead of 
"words" and things like that. It's not that I don't know the correct 
word, just that I typed it wrong. (LOL even then I had to correct "no" 
to "not" before hitting send...)

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2013 5:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 08:17:01 -0500, Shay wrote:
>
>> Most Americans wouldn't know what bespoke means.
>
> That's true enough.  The first time I heard it, I had no idea what it
> meant - but most Americans wouldn't bother to look it up or ask,
> either. :)
>
> Jim
>

IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client 
(customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored 
to their individual and exacting requirements. As opposed to something 
out of the box or off the shelf, customised to fulfil their requirements.
It harks back to the days, as you will all have read, of “gentlemen’s 
clothing”. When the only choices in “bought” clothing was ready made, 
handmade (modified readymade) and bespoke. Until recently it was only 
used by the chinless wonder type.

On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it 
albeit self-consciously.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-06-06 13:17, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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".

There/their/they're is a really common mistake made by people who don't 
pay attention to what they write.  (cf. "could of", "should of", "would of")

For the latter, I blame Word's red squiggly lines.  The person writing 
the CV probably wrote "pecific" (touch-typists will usually write the s 
with their left hand ring finger, which is one of the weakest fingers) 
and Word's autocorrect thinks that "pacific" is a closer match than 
"specific".

Disclaimer: I tested with Office 2003, may be different in newer releases.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 2:08 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Disclaimer: I tested with Office 2003, may be different in newer releases.

In word 2010 "specific" is second choice in the list of suggestions. But 
then, I've found that Word's spell checker is very poor for guessing 
what you meant. I generally copy my misspelt words into Google to get a 
better guess.
Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 09:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
> IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client
> (customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored
> to their individual and exacting requirements.

Indeed. I'm not debating that it's a fairly empty term. I was merely 
pointing out the way it's spelt. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:56:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client
> (customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored
> to their individual and exacting requirements. As opposed to something
> out of the box or off the shelf, customised to fulfil their
> requirements. It harks back to the days, as you will all have read, of
> “gentlemen’s clothing”. When the only choices in “bought” clothing was
> ready made,
> handmade (modified readymade) and bespoke. Until recently it was only
> used by the chinless wonder type.

:)  Yeah, it does seem to be marketingspeak mor ethan anything.

> On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it
> albeit self-consciously.

Interesting, because I don't think I've ever heard it in the US or used 
by Americans before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 02:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.

Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way, 
which is really quite annoying...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:57:39 +0100, scott wrote:

>>> 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:
> 
> For me at least when I'm typing quickly I sometimes type words that
> sound the same or similar to what I'm meant to be typing. Mostly I catch
> these during a quick re-read but sometimes they slip through. As well as
> the obvious homophones I've put "to" instead of "do", "works" instead of
> "words" and things like that. It's not that I don't know the correct
> word, just that I typed it wrong. (LOL even then I had to correct "no"
> to "not" before hitting send...)

For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling "typelexia" 
- I transpose letters because of my typing speed (I'm a pretty quick 
typist, don't remember what it was the last time I checked the speed, but 
I know I can sustain over 100 WPM if I don't have to stop and think about 
what I'm writing).  I've meant to learn to type using a Dvorak layout, 
just to see how fast I can get going with that style, but because I'm 
pretty quick on a QWERTY layout, I haven't taken the time.

But I don't tend to have problems with homophones, though I do tend to 
"hear" what I'm writing in my head as I'm writing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:24:26 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> On 07/06/2013 02:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.
> 
> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
> which is really quite annoying...

That happens when you leave it set to the default dictionary with an 
English installation.

And if you go into the composition preferences, click the link that says 
"download additional dictionaries" and add the English/United Kingdom 
dictionary, it insists that you use British spellings.

Funny, that. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 6:23 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 09:56 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> IM(ns)HO “bespoke” is a marketing ploy. It is used to give your client
>> (customer) a feeling that they are getting something special, tailored
>> to their individual and exacting requirements.
>
> Indeed. I'm not debating that it's a fairly empty term. I was merely
> pointing out the way it's spelt. ;-)
>
Sorry if you thought my comment was aimed at you. I was just ranting. :-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> used by the chinless wonder type.
> :)   Yeah, it does seem to be marketingspeak mor ethan anything.
>

It always has been. It comes from the days when the nob's word was their 
bond. Even if they did not pay their accounts for years.
Originally it meant fiancée. She was bespoke, or spoken for. IIRC

>> >On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it
>> >albeit self-consciously.
> Interesting, because I don't think I've ever heard it in the US or used
> by Americans before.

No, you wouldn't. There were about a dozen of us Brits working on the 
project in NM. Gee! we were "cute" with our funny English accents.
I through a wobblie in Walmart.

"I'm too old to be cute. Ma'am"

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 6:24 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 02:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.
>
> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
> which is really quite annoying...

Palm-slap to the forehead.
And you earn your living working on computers.

Now I'm getting at you. :-P


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-6-2013 21:22, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/06/2013 6:24 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 07/06/2013 02:30 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> Using Thunderbird it is the first choice.
>>
>> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
>> which is really quite annoying...
>
> Palm-slap to the forehead.
> And you earn your living working on computers.
>

Andy has a couple of strong points, one of them is asking when he 
doesn't know (or bluntly stating what he thinks is wrong), even in those 
cases where others would be silent because they feel they should know 
better. A somewhat weak point is that that is because he is not able to 
spot those circumstances.
All in all this is much to be preferred over those who try to maintain 
their image by never learning anything.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-6-2013 1:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
>

My impression is that it is more common with native speakers. Probably 
because they learn to speak English before they learn to write. For 
those of us for whom it is a second language it is the other way around.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-6-2013 19:26, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 07:57:39 +0100, scott wrote:
>
>>>> 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:
>>
>> For me at least when I'm typing quickly I sometimes type words that
>> sound the same or similar to what I'm meant to be typing. Mostly I catch
>> these during a quick re-read but sometimes they slip through. As well as
>> the obvious homophones I've put "to" instead of "do", "works" instead of
>> "words" and things like that. It's not that I don't know the correct
>> word, just that I typed it wrong. (LOL even then I had to correct "no"
>> to "not" before hitting send...)
>
> For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling "typelexia"
> - I transpose letters because of my typing speed

I do that too, and I gave originally the same reason. Until I started to 
do the same thing on the white board while teaching.




-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:18:07 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/06/2013 6:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> used by the chinless wonder type.
>> :)   Yeah, it does seem to be marketingspeak mor ethan anything.
>>
>>
> It always has been. It comes from the days when the nob's word was their
> bond. Even if they did not pay their accounts for years.
> Originally it meant fiancée. She was bespoke, or spoken for. IIRC

Word history is always interesting.  :)

> 
>>> >On a recent job in America it became common to hear Americans use it
>>> >albeit self-consciously.
>> Interesting, because I don't think I've ever heard it in the US or used
>> by Americans before.
> 
> No, you wouldn't. There were about a dozen of us Brits working on the
> project in NM. Gee! we were "cute" with our funny English accents.
> I through a wobblie in Walmart.
> 
> "I'm too old to be cute. Ma'am"

LOL

JIm

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:51:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> For me, fast typing tends to cause what I've started calling
>> "typelexia"
>> - I transpose letters because of my typing speed
> 
> I do that too, and I gave originally the same reason. Until I started to
> do the same thing on the white board while teaching.

I think I call that a "brain fart". :)

Have done that a few times myself.  Or get halfway through writing a word 
on the board, and then forget what I was writing.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:49:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

> My impression is that it is more common with native speakers. Probably
> because they learn to speak English before they learn to write. For
> those of us for whom it is a second language it is the other way around.

That's an interesting observation - I hadn't thought about that.  It 
certainly does have a certain type of logic to it, though. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:45:26 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Andy has a couple of strong points, one of them is asking when he
> doesn't know (or bluntly stating what he thinks is wrong), even in those
> cases where others would be silent because they feel they should know
> better. A somewhat weak point is that that is because he is not able to
> spot those circumstances.
> All in all this is much to be preferred over those who try to maintain
> their image by never learning anything.

Absolutely - the problem is when one makes an assertion that is clearly 
(to those who know) false, but then to insist that the observation still 
must be correct, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

For example, the assertion that nobody could ever possibly earn enough 
money to own a house unless they were super rich.  Something that even 
Andy now knows through his own experience is a false statement.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.  

I wouldn't agree with that argument.

Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by people.
Of course many people use the language in different ways (often you just
have to go to the next city to hear slight differences), and an "official"
grammar is usually an agreement on one that's most understandable by
everybody and conforms best to the normal, natural use of the language.
If you say this is "artificial", then I'm not using the word in the same
meaning as you.

When I say "artificial" I mean a made-up rule (in this case a rule invented
by one person, even!) that does not correspond to actual usage of the
language, and doesn't actually address any problem with it. A rule that's
more prescriptive than descriptive.

Rules of grammar should be more descriptive in nature: They describe how
the language works. Prescriptive rules, especially those that do not
correspond well to the actual usage of the language, are more artificial.

One could try to alleviate this "rule" and say that it's more like just
a style guide. In other words, "in general you should not put prepositions
at the end of sentences if you don't have to, but you don't have to avoid
it at all costs either." However, that's not how many people see it. They
interpret it has a hard, prescriptive rule. "It's bad grammar to put
prepositions at the end of sentences!"

> "The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a 
> preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.

But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
preposition. It's because it lacks something.

You could move the preposition somewhere else in the sentence and it
wouldn't become any clearer. That the sentence happens to end in a
preposition is irrelevant. Therefore the rule (even if we interpret it
just as a style guide) doesn't apply at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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.

I'm not sure if you understood what I said. I said that it's kind of
understandable that some people make this mistake (because they write
what they pronounce). I didn't say that it's hard to distinguish between
the two cases in a written sentence.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Thunderbird insists that everything must be spelt the American way,
>> which is really quite annoying...
>
> That happens when you leave it set to the default dictionary with an
> English installation.
>
> And if you go into the composition preferences, click the link that says
> "download additional dictionaries" and add the English/United Kingdom
> dictionary, it insists that you use British spellings.
>
> Funny, that. ;)

Yeah, you would think that would solve it...

Oh well, I guess I should just be thankful that I got spell-checking to 
work at all this time.

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 9:45 PM, andrel wrote:
> Andy has a couple of strong points,

More than a couple, I would say.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2013 11:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Word history is always interesting.:)

http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/

Is quite good as is my wife with her penchant for Victorian books.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 04:22:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> One might argue that most rules of grammar are completely artificial.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with that argument.

Why am I not surprised? ;)

> Most rules of grammar describe the actual language, as it's used by
> people.

And the way that the English language is used by people is that they 
don't generally end sentences with prepositions, because doing so often 
makes things unclear.

Here's the thing about rules that I was taught by a music theory 
teacher:  It's OK to break them, but you have to learn them first.

> Of course many people use the language in different ways (often you just
> have to go to the next city to hear slight differences), and an
> "official" grammar is usually an agreement on one that's most
> understandable by everybody and conforms best to the normal, natural use
> of the language.
> If you say this is "artificial", then I'm not using the word in the same
> meaning as you.
> 
> When I say "artificial" I mean a made-up rule (in this case a rule
> invented by one person, even!) that does not correspond to actual usage
> of the language, and doesn't actually address any problem with it. A
> rule that's more prescriptive than descriptive.

Citation, please, for this "invented by one person" statement.

>> "The apple was beside." - that's a sentence fragment that ends in a
>> preposition.  It's completely unclear what the apple was beside.
> 
> But the reason for it being unclear was not that it ends in the
> preposition. It's because it lacks something.

Yes, it lacks the object that is referenced.  Now you tell me how to 
construct that sentence with the missing object *without* putting the 
missing object ahead of the preposition.  Oh, and it has to make sense, 
too. ;)

> You could move the preposition somewhere else in the sentence and it
> wouldn't become any clearer. That the sentence happens to end in a
> preposition is irrelevant. Therefore the rule (even if we interpret it
> just as a style guide) doesn't apply at all.

Sure it does.  It's just not a hard and fast rule.  It's a rule of thumb, 
and usually includes the condition "unless rewriting the sentence so the 
preposition at the end makes the sentence more convoluted and less clear."

Jim

Post a reply to this message