Grammar Nazi's of OcUK, your help is needed. "Most vs. Almost".

Castiel said:
It does depend on the level of formality being used in the example.....in informal usage, given that the orator is American and considering the relevant accepted colloquialisms therein, the sentence (given that we only have a fragment) would be acceptable and therefore correct.

However that doesn't mean that the sentence cannot be structured better or that it is correct in formal standard English......
Click to expand...

Well true. I did clarify that this is a common Americanism. It's just another example though of them misusing our language :p

kd
 
British English, International English and all other synonyms are all insulting. The correct phrasing is English. English is the evolving language used in the UK, anything else is not English.
 
hibernian1875 said:
International English is the standard for English taught in other (non-english speaking) countries which is to the standard of Cambridge/Oxford dictionary definition is it not? Definition does state 'most every' but as a mainly US informal word.
Click to expand...

International English has a dual Standard approach to acceptable standard conventions....and both are correct. Whether you follow the Individualistic Standard or the Inclusive Standard is immaterial as International English supports both.
 
hibernian1875 said:
*Edit* Having a google I agree with your point Castiel about standards, but it's similar to basic English and using an informal mainly US based term wouldn't fall in to the category of basic English.
Click to expand...

I would simply say that the sentence is poorly structured rather than it being grammatically incorrect.....however much depends on the context of the piece and the level of formality expected of it.

As with all things with the English language and the differences in British and American conventions in it's use we could argue all day over which is correct, as it depends on which conventions we consider valid.....the age old argument. :)

Should I mention Color????? ;)
 
Last edited:
Eddie182 said:
I actually edited it before you posted. No really I did.

It appears that I'm going to have to put up with this, "Americanism" then. I know it's wrong, every educated adult in Britain knows it's wrong, but alas there is no evidence I can show to prove it. I have Googled this extensively by the way, but for every web page that indicates I'm correct there is another (normally American) site that says it either doesn't matter or that I'm wrong.

Ah bugger it, life's too short to worry this much about something this trivial.
Click to expand...

Just noticed he's changed it himself :)

EDIT- No he hasn't actually

Nate
 
King Damager said:
Well true. I did clarify that this is a common Americanism. It's just another example though of them misusing our language :p

kd
Click to expand...

English is a surprisingly resistant language to change...if you look at other languages then you can see that over time they can become almost indistinguishable to each other...the dialects are almost like separate languages.

Americans are just basically lazy when it comes to language conventions though, and unfortunately their prominence in Global media and print means that they are increasingly influencing English conventions globally and not only locally.

I suspect that eventually, given the Lingua Franca status of English, there will be an eventual standardisation, although I hate to say it, it will probably be based on American English conventions if it follows what has happened linguistically with other languages historically.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I would simply say that the sentence is poorly structured rather than it being grammatically incorrect.....however much depends on the context of the piece and the level of formality expected of it.

As with all things with the English language and the differences in British and American conventions in it's use we could argue all day over which is correct, as it depends on which conventions we consider valid.....the age old argument. :)

Should I mention Color????? ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with this. IMO for use in an international bit of software I would personally avoid using terms like that. I feel it would be like me putting 'Aye' and 'Nah' for the yes/no options on something. I know that takes it a bit further than the OPs example.

Please don't get me started on colo(u)r, most things don't annoy me too much (living in Scotland and with how us Scots adapt the language) but that's just lazy :p Same goes for hono(u)r

Also wish you wouldn't keep editing cos I need to keep refreshing and redoing my quoting (on my mobile and with fat fingers syndrome) :D
 
Most people know the difference between "Almost" and "Most."

Almost everyone who does would be despairing at this thread.
 
hibernian1875 said:
Please don't get me started on colo(u)r, most things don't annoy me too much (living in Scotland and with how us Scots adapt the language) but that's just lazy :p Same goes for hono(u)r
Click to expand...

As for lazy, what about Thru?.....:p

hibernian1875 said:
Also wish you wouldn't keep editing cos I need to keep refreshing and redoing my quoting (on my mobile and with fat fingers syndrome) :D
Click to expand...

Sorry, bad habit....I post and then think, maybe I should add this or that to make it clearer, or actually I forgot to say this and so on.....:)
 
Thru surely isn't used in any formal sense though is it?? Would be asking whoever if they were a 14 year old texting if that turned up in a work environment or on any formal documents.

I do the same with editing posts and usually not a problem if i'm at a pc, only just noticing it's a bit more hassle on my phone.

Back to OP though, glad that he's finally seen sense!
 
hibernian1875 said:
Thru surely isn't used in any formal sense though is it?? Would be asking whoever if they were a 14 year old texting if that turned up in a work environment or on any formal documents.
Click to expand...

it is informal, however as with most languages the informal use of words invariably becomes the norm then it becomes the convention, with the older more formal word becoming archaic and falling out of use. This happens in British English also, as does shorthand becoming convention......a current example would be Kilogram(me).....with the shortened version becoming the convention largely supported by international standardisation of weights and measures.

In ancient languages, this etymology is how we can date manuscripts and writings more accurately than you would expect.......
 
After posting I realised Drive-Thru already uses it as a standard but feel that would be like commenting on "phones 4 u" so wasn't worth the edit. As has been stated English is fairly resistant to change (at least to trends although we are accepting more modern stuff in to the dictionary). If we do go down that route my grandchildren will get sick of me going on about "the good old days when we used to spell things correctly"...
 
Well at being only 26 i was unaware of those changes so it has never entered in to my thoughts to annoy me. If that was how it was traditionally spelt then I would have no problems with people using it, however the difference arises when (like the OP stated) people state that it is incorrect to use the traditional. Also do you have a timetable for when it became defunct as if it was early in our transition to what we consider English then it could be counted as a relic from forming our current language. The States have chosen somewhere in recent history to differentiate from British English for a reason I can only see as being lazy and still call it English.
 
hibernian1875 said:
Well at being only 26 i was unaware of those changes so it has never entered in to my thoughts to annoy me. If that was how it was traditionally spelt then I would have no problems with people using it, however the difference arises when (like the OP stated) people state that it is incorrect to use the traditional. Also do you have a timetable for when it became defunct as if it was early in our transition to what we consider English then it could be counted as a relic from forming our current language. The States have chosen somewhere in recent history to differentiate from British English for a reason I can only see as being lazy and still call it English.
Click to expand...

Our language continues to adapt and change as it always has done. Dropping the U from mirrour is no less "lazy" than dropping the U from colour, regardless of which happened first.

Incidentally, color without a U is the latin root. Is a U getting added in there (probably from Norman influence) any more correct than when the U later gets dropped again? Seems daft to me that people care so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom