Have vs. of

Beverley Knight might have something to say about this one.

Anyway do people really get anything out of correcting grammar on and internet forum? It's such a waste of time and detracts from whatever the discussion is.

You wouldn't go down the pub and start correcting people on their grammar, or people at work. If you did you would look like a complete tool and be judged worse than the person you were correcting.
Agreed and you certainly wouldn't want to be doing that in certain pubs in Glasgow.

I can just picture it

"Hoi, you there! Yes, you, the chap with the tatoos you aren't speaking the queen's english my good fellow."
 
What a bunch of pedantic sob's. Some people do really struggle with grammar, and on a place like this it barely matters if the message is clear to begin with. Get a grip. i myt js tlk lyk dis 2 **** u of.
 
Try French grammar! It's hellish!

It's entirely down to my personal feeling though, an irrational disdain if you wish. It shouldn't matter, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't affect me directly. However, I do pick up on bad spelling and poor basic grammar (I'm not talking about split infinitives, or poor use of declensions etc...). I tut to myself and, sometimes actually judge what I see as well as, the person involved. It's unfair, and in most cases, has no relevance to how able or clever that person is.

I guess I'm like this owing to the amount of fuss that I went through as a child to ensure my grammar was correct in numerous languages.
 
Why doesn't it make sense?
Because it's said when something hurts. 'Smart' is not interchangeable with 'hurt'.

He's crying because he's smart.

Give me the money or I'll smart your dog.

It makes no sense.

*edit*
Actually I just checked the dictionary and apparently I'm wrong and smart is a synonym of hurt. When did that happen. An Americanism I guess?
 
Because it's said when something hurts. 'Smart' is not interchangeable with 'hurt'.

But that's exactly what smart as a verb means.

Edit:

Actually I just checked the dictionary and apparently I'm wrong and smart is a synonym of hurt. When did that happen. An Americanism I guess?

No... It's been used that way since at least as far back as the 13th century. In fact it had that use before it ever meant "clever".

smart (v.)
O.E. smeortan "be painful," from W.Gmc. *smert- (cf. M.Du. smerten, Du. smarten, O.H.G. smerzan, Ger. schmerzen "to pain," originally "to bite"), from PIE base *(s)merd-, from base *(s)mer- "to rub, pound" (cf. Gk. smerdnos "terrible, dreadful," Skt. mardayati "grinds, rubs, crushes," L. mordere to bite").

smart (adj.)
late O.E. smeart "sharp, severe, stinging," related to smeortan (see smart (v.)). Meaning "quick, active, clever" is attested from c.1300, probably from the notion of "cutting" wit, words, etc.; meaning "trim in attire" first attested 1718, "ascending from the kitchen to the drawing-room c.1880." [Weekley] In ref. to devices, "behaving as though guided by intelligence" (e.g. smart bomb) first attested 1972. Smarts "good sense, intelligence," is first recorded 1968. Smart cookie is from 1948; smarty-pants first attested 1941.

-etymonline.com
 
Last edited:
So you should also be able to do the same level of maths now as you did when studying it in school? Or be able to explain in detail the process of photosynthesis?

Not necessarily... I do very little maths on a day to day basis and have nothing to do with photosynthesis anymore so my abilities with either would be far from acceptable in a mathematic of biological situation but I do use the English language all day everyday.
 
Not necessarily... I do very little maths on a day to day basis and have nothing to do with photosynthesis anymore so my abilities with either would be far from acceptable in a mathematic of biological situation but I do use the English language all day everyday.

Spoken not written and certainly not queens English. Lots of colloquialisms and oddities in regional language.
 
Back
Top Bottom