BBO Forums incorrect spelling

[the hog]

"I agree with you that nitpicking about small grammatical errors doesn't serve any purpose"

It certainly does serve a purpose. A lack of good grammar is the sign of an untidy and lazy mind. If we don't stamp on these errors when we encounter them, the English language will be further eroded. I cringe when I hear, "I was like.....", for example.

[Trinidad]

A lack of good grammar is the sign of an untidy and lazy mind.

Obviously, for every phenomenon in nature there can only be one causal explanation.

 

Absolute statements are signs of a closed mind. (Yes, I am aware that this is recurrent.)

 

Rik

[helene_t]

I used to be annoyed when I heard "incorrect" use of language. It has changed over the last decades. Hyper-correction can still annoy me a little bit, but only a little bit, and other types of "incorrect" language use don't induce the slightest bit of negative emotions in me. If anything, I have come to value non-conformism with respect to language use, like I value it in other respects. I have strongly adapted the POV that language councils are there to describe how language is actually being used, not to prescripe how it ought to be used.

 

That said, I still think that precise communication is a virtue. Abuse of passive voice: "it has been argued that ...." when it isn't clear whether the missing subject is implicit or not, is something I am no fan of. But again, it doesn't induce much negative emotions in me. At worst I just see it as a sign of a lack of a particular skill. Just like some people are better than others at hammering nails accurately, some people are better than others at communicating accurately. No big deal. But we should be less harsh on imprecise communication than we should be on imprecise nail-hammering as the former is more subjective.

 

It has been a radical change in POV for me. I think two factors have contributed to it. First, I am generally becoming more tollerant with age. Second, I haven't been using my native language regularly for nearly two decades so there is no language which I am able to speak and write "correctly" anymore.

[Vampyr]

However, anybody who wants to get a message across should not aim for that message to be "understandable". He should aim for "crystal clear".

 

I agree. I think that such clarity is demanded, at the very least, by common courtesy to the reader.

[kenberg]

Surely context is important. My doctor, when he wants to examine me, tells me to lay down on the table. I figure that when a guy is about to stick his finger up your butt it's not a good time to discuss grammatical issues. Similarly, I was shopping yesterday. We get cheese and lunchmeat cut to order at the deli, and you take a number to be served. They called number 50 and I said "That's me". I could have said "That is I", I believe, though honestly I am not positive, that would have been correct, but it also sounds affected. I just want some munster and ham. Otoh, Becky and I have finally gotten around to getting wills, advance directives, etc done. About time, of course, but finally we are dealing with the fact that we are not immortal. On this, we are real fuss budgets.

 

Here is an in-between item. Becky signed up for a weight loss program at the Y. Against my better judgment, I signed up as well. Our first meeting was Tuesday and there were hand-outs. many hand-outs. At one point Becky pointed to something and asked what I thought it meant. I couldn't tell. But I had already asked about so many other things that I was sure I was getting on their nerves, so it seemed better for Becky to ask.

 

In the age of computers everyone is an instant author. I recognize the irony inherent in my posting this message to the world. We post, we create hand-outs, we write up descriptions of bridge conventions, and so on. I will learn to blog someday, as soon as I figure out what it means. And we sometimes confuse others about what we mean and embarrass ourselves.

 

Clarity is useful, aesthetics are important. proofreading is time consuming. Balance would be good.

[Vampyr]

proofreading is time consuming.

 

It is, but I think it is an obligation to anyone who wants others to do them the favour of reading their work.

[Cthulhu D]

 

 

To get pig headed (as I have done in the past) about such things -- split infinitives;

 

The splint initiatives thing a total beat up, they date back to the 13-14th century in common usage. There has never been a time in the history of 'English' where people didn't split infinitives. The source of the argument is some guy in the 18th century didn't like them because you cannot split infinitives in Latin, because Latin grammar/vocabulary doesn't support it. But that's like complaining about the use of tense in English because Bahasa Indonesian doesn't have a declension of verbs for the past and future tense.

[Vampyr]

you cannot split infinitives in Latin, because Latin grammar/vocabulary doesn't support it.

 

No indeed, as Latin infinitives, like those in Russian, French and most other languages, are one word.

[Trinidad]

No indeed, as Latin infinitives, like those in Russian, French and most other languages, are one word.

The fact that it is one word is not a good argument. Other languages are regularly splitting words. As an example, a Dutch word for "to apply" (for a grant) is "aanvragen" (one word). In Dutch one would say: "Kunt u mij helpen deze beurs aan te vragen?". ("Could you help me to apply for this grant?"). In German, as far as I understand it, this would result in one word, split, including the "to": "Können Sie mir helfen dieses Stipendium anzufragen?" (from anfragen and zu). I am not sure about this, but my German colleagues insist on it.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?

[Vampyr]

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?

 

I give up -- tell us!

 

Personally, I would replace "to not fail" with "to <a word that is the opposite of failing>". But give us your example sentences.

[WellSpyder]

One way not to fail is not to take a test. But I think that in order to not fail you really need to take a test and presumably to pass.

[mycroft]

I'm willing to accept txtspk in time-sensitive situations; not everybody types 60 wpm. But when there is enough time and space to actually do it, f u rite lik this u won't get red. By me, anyway.

 

I don't expect formal oxford English; I'm as colloquial as the next poster (okay, maybe more). But assuming that your time is so valuable that you can't type those extra two characters, but my time trying to read it is not, gets the appropriate response.

[the hog]

Obviously, for every phenomenon in nature there can only be one causal explanation.

 

Absolute statements are signs of a closed mind. (Yes, I am aware that this is recurrent.)

 

Rik

 

The earth revolves around the sun. This is an absolute statement. Rik, re-read your post and realise how silly it is.

[barmar]

The earth revolves around the sun. This is an absolute statement. Rik, re-read your post and realise how silly it is.

No, they each revolve around their common center of gravity. And that's only if you ignore the effects of all the other planets and satellites. Not to mention the fact that the whole solar system is revolving around the center of the Milky Way.

 

Getting back to spelling, it changes over time due to cultural influences. What's right at one time can become wrong if enough people adopt the new style. Like when Noah Webster proclaimed a bunch of spelling changes when he published his first American dictionary (e.g. dropping the "u" in words like "colour").

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/spelling-reform.htm

 

Who's to say that in 50 years "u" won't be the correct spelling of "you"? And if that's going to happen, it has to start somewhere. You may call it degradation, but it's just natural drift. Spelling is practically arbitrary, there's no inherent right or wrong, just what most people do and what's understandable.

[Vampyr]

Sorry, couldn't properly format what I wanted to post.

[barmar]

What's the difference in meaning between "not to fail" and "to not fail"?

The issue with splitting infinitives is practically always in the context of where an adverb should be placed. E.g. "to boldly go" versus "to go boldly" or "boldly to go".

 

A phrase like "to not fail" essentially treats "not fail" as a compound verb (probably synonymous with "succeed"). I think many people who would have no problem with "to boldly go" would find this construct awkward sounding.

[Vampyr]

The issue with splitting infinitives is practically always in the context of where an adverb should be placed.

 

Yes, I thought of mentioning this, but then I thought that blackshoe was asking us a riddle and was going to give us an answer.

[blackshoe]

A riddle, perhaps, but I posted it because I didn't know the answer.

 

As for "boldly go", if I'm not mistaken the grammar rules I learned as a child would say the correct construction is "to go boldly", perhaps "boldly to go", but "to boldly go" has certainly entered the lexicon since the 1960s and is firmly entrenched. Do they differ in meaning? Again, I don't know.

[helene_t]

The fact that it is one word is not a good argument. Other languages are regularly splitting words. As an example, a Dutch word for "to apply" (for a grant) is "aanvragen" (one word). In Dutch one would say: "Kunt u mij helpen deze beurs aan te vragen?". ("Could you help me to apply for this grant?"). In German, as far as I understand it, this would result in one word, split, including the "to": "Können Sie mir helfen dieses Stipendium anzufragen?" (from anfragen and zu). I am not sure about this, but my German colleagues insist on it.

 

Rik

I think this is a different issue. Dutch has compound verbs which may be written as one or two words depending on grammatical context, i.e. "vraag aan" vs "aanvragen". The issue with split infinitives in English is about the particular word "to". Dutch "te" and German "zu" are, afaik, never split from the infinitive.

[Trinidad]

I think this is a different issue. Dutch has compound verbs which may be written as one or two words depending on grammatical context, i.e. "vraag aan" vs "aanvragen". The issue with split infinitives in English is about the particular word "to". Dutch "te" and German "zu" are, afaik, never split from the infinitive.

That is true.

 

However, I was merely arguing that the fact that in other languages (the example given was Latin) an infinitive is one word is no argument why it could not be split. There is no fundamental reason why we are not allowed to cut a word into two pieces. And, in fact, some languages (e.g. Dutch) do so routinely.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

A riddle, perhaps, but I posted it because I didn't know the answer.

 

As for "boldly go", if I'm not mistaken the grammar rules I learned as a child would say the correct construction is "to go boldly", perhaps "boldly to go", but "to boldly go" has certainly entered the lexicon since the 1960s and is firmly entrenched. Do they differ in meaning? Again, I don't know.

 

The main thing about "to boldly go" is that it makes it clear that "boldly" refers to "go", and not "to go"; in other words, it is not the act of going but the manner of going that is bold. In this respect it differs from "boldly to go". As for "to go boldly", it sounds pretty bad, and also has some ambiguity, as it is right next to "where no man has gone before"; that is, they didn't go there and it is bold for us to go there.