Grammar Police Triumph!

Treefrog · 4 Mar 2006 at 18:17

Whitewater said:
This is great news I hope it leads to better punctuation on the internet there's nothing worse than reading a post with no commas or full stops in it so the post reads like one long sentence it hurts my head to read them especially when theirs bad spellings and gramour in it to.

Git!

DiG · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:05

tbh I'm glad I've already taken my GCSE English, it is a load of rubbish to me, as long as I can get my point across in a way that is easy to understand I don't see the problem :confused:

And the its it's stuff went right over my head!

robmiller · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:09

DiG said:
tbh I'm glad I've already taken my GCSE English, it is a load of rubbish to me, as long as I can get my point across in a way that is easy to understand I don't see the problem

And the its it's stuff went right over my head!

Whilst some people certainly have legitimate problems, it strikes me as something that's remarkably straightforward to understand and the fact that people don't bother to do so usually says a lot about them. It doesn't take much effort to learn how speak/write correctly, so why not do so?

N9ne · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:10

This is an excellent move. They should do things like this in every exam else people will keep slipping through the net and exam grades will continue to become further devalued.

Big Chris · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:32

I think this is just what's needed. The amount of people I encounter who don't know how to punctuate properly or who can't grasp the difference between there, they're and their is astounding.

It really isn't that complex a thing to understand, it took a couple of basic English lessons early on in my school career and I've not forgotten it since.

Haly · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:37

Bracco said:
Nice . Although, to be fair, when I was at school, we were taught stuff like Johns' dog, to show it belonged to him, and John's dog would mean John is dog. <shrug>.

I pity anyone who was taught by your English teacher then

That's a shocking error :/

VeNT · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:41

auto fails for one mistake is apauling, I'm dyslexic and had a realy hard time doing GCSE english, retook it few years back and got a C atlast, but would have probably failed if this had been in then as my grammar/spelling is terrible

M0KUJ1N · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:44

I think perl should be taught as part of the English language curriculum, that'll soon teach you the differences between ", ` and '

(said only partly in jest tbh!)

Meridian · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:53

Bracco said:
Nice . Although, to be fair, when I was at school, we were taught stuff like Johns' dog, to show it belonged to him, and John's dog would mean John is dog. <shrug>.

Er...

"Johns' dog" could have two meanings only:

1) The dog that belonged to someone called "Johns" rather than "John", and

2) The dog which belonged to more than one person, both or all called John, as in "The Johns' dog was called Fido".

"John's dog" in theory could mean John was a dog, but if you ever phrased it like that then the Spelling Police would beat you with rubber hoses. In real life "John's dog" always means the dog belonging to John (in the singular this time).

M

Johnny Girth · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:53

The apostrophe is only placed at the end of a word that ends with an S IIRC. e.g. Jesus' disciples

Don't think that's entirely correct.

It's Jesus's disciples.

The cooks' soup.

It's 's if the word is non plural and ends in s but it's only ' if the word is a plural ending in s.

Nikias · 4 Mar 2006 at 19:54

DiG said:
as long as I can get my point across in a way that is easy to understand

How do you propose to do that without being able to construct sentences properly? The whole point of grammar, punctuation and spelling is to make it easier to understand!

Sure, if you don't heed most of the conventions used then perhaps your audience may still be able to understand the gist of what you're saying. They may not, however, understand the exact point you're trying to make.
Some parts may be left open to a variety of interpretations or be unclear. It will certainly be more arduous and time-consuming to read on their part - not what you're looking for if you actually want people to take notice of what you're saying.

Is it not just a common courtesy to make your writing as legible as possible for whoever might read it? Particularly in these days of the Internet, just about anyone might be reading. What if they are dyslexic and already struggle to read well-crafted writing? What if their first language isn't English? What if they just don't have the time to sift through your cryptic prattle, searching for that elusive point which you're trying to make?

Whatever that point is, it will assuredly be enhanced by good writing. That can be knowing when to use a semi-colon instead of a conjunction for effect or just producing clear prose that is a breeze to read. It's sad that you think it's a load of rubbish; I urge you to reconsider.

Ol!ver · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:02

I think this is spot on. All they've got to do now is sort out 'there, their and they're' and 'quit. quite and quiet' and we might have a population that can write its own language !

Guybrush · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:04

and 'been'/'being'

I know quite a few people who cannot differentiate between the two. Yes, really. :rolleyes:

M0KUJ1N · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:05

Johnny Girth said:
Don't think that's entirely correct.

It's Jesus's disciples.

The cooks' soup.

It's 's if the word is non plural and ends in s

Wrong

but it's only ' if the word is a plural ending in s

Im starting to think I should have slacked at uni and studied English so I could become an English teacher tbh...

On a related note, one of the most infurating idiomatic phrases in the English language is "keeping up with the Joneses' ". Unless (by some odd fluke the family name is Joneses) it should be "keeping up with the Jones' ". Of course the interesting point here is how is it actually said? Keeping up with the Jones (as it is written) or " keeping up with the Joneses"? This discrepency between the written and spoken English in this grammatical case is probably where a lot of the confusion about how to punctuate it arises. Unfortunately for its students and users, the English language is inconsistent, frustrating and ambiguous. It is also beautiful, eloquent and expressive!

Berserker · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:11

I admit that the apostrophe is probably the one area that still causes me trouble. Up until recently I regularly made the its/it's mistake (in fact, I wasn't even aware that its existed).

Now I just apply the rule that if 'it is' fits, then I can use 'it's', otherwise it's 'its'. Probably wrong, and I do have to stop and think every time, but at least it's an improvement over where I was before.

PS - I have never used the grocer's apostrophe. :eek:

Amleto · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:47

Berserker said:
...

PS - I have never used the grocer's apostrophe.

I have used it sometimes. I knew it was wrong at the time, but I thought more people would understand me that way. That's how bad things have got imo.

dirtydog · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:50

Berserker said:
Now I just apply the rule that if 'it is' fits, then I can use 'it's', otherwise it's 'its'. Probably wrong, and I do have to stop and think every time, but at least it's an improvement over where I was before.

'it's' can also mean 'it has' of course

You've got the right idea though.

M0KUJ1N is right that English is full of inconsistencies and the above is one of them I guess.

Another one which springs to mind is humour/humorous (not humourous), and vigour/vigorous (not vigourous) and so on.

Royality · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:52

dirtydog said:
'it's' can also mean 'it has' of course You've got the right idea though.

M0KUJ1N is right that English is full of inconsistencies and the above is one of them I guess.

Another one which springs to mind is humour/humorous (not humourous), and vigour/vigorous (not vigourous) and so on.

Well i find spellchekc helps with such things HOOORAY.

Royality · 4 Mar 2006 at 20:54

TBH stick to creative writing, you can use whatever words you want and exclamations and because your are being 'artisictic' its fine.!

E,g. :
I love to play!
!!! In fields!?!?!
Tis! TRUE! Bonnnng.

Mkaes perfect sense because it's ARTISTIC.

Ol!ver · 4 Mar 2006 at 21:02

Guybrush said:
and 'been'/'being'

I know quite a few people who cannot differentiate between the two. Yes, really.

Of and Have seem to be a current fave with people.

For example.

Ashley Cole should have stuck to women.

instead of

Ashley Cole should HAVE stuck to women.

Grammar Police Triumph!

Woman of Honour