Spelling and grammer

[pritch]

"Same Difference" in the sense that Scumdog is talking about is an oxymoron, an attempt at humour thus intentionally bad England.

Exactly. Similar to saying, "Dejavu all over again" which others and myself have used. The redundancy being entirely intentional.

[Edbear]

At the foot of the bed...are you sure that is what she was confused about?

Pretty sure...

Exactly. Similar to saying, "Dejavu all over again" which others and myself have used. The redundancy being entirely intentional.

Gotta watch them intentional redundancies, they tend to dejavu...

[MikeL]

What we forget is that the English language has changed significantly over the ages...it is still changing and many of these grammatical issues will be long gone

True, and indeed much of what is considered correct grammar today originated as mistakes due to carelessness or ignorance.
Doesn't mean that we should give up and accept anything, though.
Case in point: A hundred years from now the turn of phrase "I would of done it" will most likely be completely accepted, despite the fact that to many people today it is an abomination. (Proof: the almost equally illogical "If I had have done it" raises few eyebrows today, although 40 years ago it was only ever used by the uneducated.) Nevertheless I will resist this and similar innovations not because they are illogical but because subjectively they just don't feel right. Objectively it is hard to argue against them, given the nature of linguistic evolution; subjectively they will always be an abomination. Then again, perhaps if enough people started caring about clarity and logic and elegance in language usage, they might remain abominations in the future.

[bikemike]

A hundred years from now the turn of phrase "I would of done it" will most likely be completely accepted, despite the fact that to many people today it is an abomination. (Proof: the almost equally illogical "If I had have done it" raises few eyebrows today, although 40 years ago it was only ever used by the uneducated.)

Hard to swallow - surely I will do it, I am doing it, I have done it - and therefore, I could have done it, should have done it, would have done it. There's no room for would of done it. Unless you can say I of done it, then it must be would have done it.

RSVP Please ;-)

[MikeL]

Hard to swallow - surely I will do it, I am doing it, I have done it - and therefore, I could have done it, should have done it, would have done it. There's no room for would of done it. Unless you can say I of done it, then it must be would have done it.

This is logically right. Unfortunately linguistic change frequently ignores logic, because it involves such things as analogy and phonetic confusion.
The origin of "would of" is easily explained. Because "have" in compound tenses is most frequently found (in conversation) in contracted form (e.g. "would've"), in which the "'ve" is phonetically identical to the "of" in phrases like "price of meat", at a sub-conscious level the brain starts to confuse these two quite separate words. Subsequently even in the uncontracted form, "of" replaces "have", so that we hear phrases like "I would of, but I didn't have time", in which "of" is given its full pronunciation. From the logical point of view of course it is a barbarism, but as I said before, much of modern English grammatical usage started out as barbarisms.

[smoky]

Aoccdrnig to rseearch it deosnt mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae
the rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe

[Winston001]

Aoccdrnig to rseearch it deosnt mttaer in what oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae
the rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef but the wrod as a wlohe

Yes and your version scans and is readable. However that is because the correct letters are there, each word is the right length, and as you say, the beginning and end are correct.

The type of posts which irritate people do not have these attributes. Words are mis-spelt or leet. Additionally everything is run together - no paragraphs. When confronted with a big block of text which doesn't have sufficent recognisable words, most readers move on.

[Hinny]

Indeed -


I agree mightily on that point, and include the there/their/they're confusion Totally different words in meaning but so often it appears the user is totally oblivious to their blunder

Did you mean there're, rather than they're? There are as opposed to they are.
You may well have been oblivious to your blunder.

[Hinny]

The uncharitable might suggest that you have just answered your own question.

Uncharitable or perspicacious?

[Beemer]

I think you need to differentiate between the illiterate and the lazy. There are a few people who really struggle, but a lot more who simply choose the lazy way to write. No capitals or punctuation, no sentence or paragraph construction, txt spk nd l33t.

The irritation expressed on this site reflects society's aversion to such self-indulgent laziness, which was even encouraged (albeit briefly) by our "education system".

I agree. If someone isn't that hot on spelling I won't jump in and criticise everything they post, but I get extremely pissed off with no capitals, no full stops, and no attempt to try and make things clear to those poor sods who have to try and decipher it!

I don't care if you didn't get any qualifications at school and can't spell - but if you want people to understand what you are saying, then at least put some effort into your written communications.

[Hinny]

The BDOTGNZA isn't as vigilant as it once was. But if some people find sloppiness in written English acceptable, good on them.

If I ever did know what BDOTGNZA stood for, I have forgotten.
Would you please enlighten me.

[hayd3n]

If I ever did know what BDOTGNZA stood for, I have forgotten.
Would you please enlighten me.

big dick on the ganga not zoe appliciable

[hayd3n]

I agree. If someone isn't that hot on spelling I won't jump in and criticise everything they post, but I get extremely pissed off with no capitals, no full stops, and no attempt to try and make things clear to those poor sods who have to try and decipher it!

I don't care if you didn't get any qualifications at school and can't spell - but if you want people to understand what you are saying, then at least put some effort into your written communications.

This site is about Motorcycles and riding Motorbikes , Its not about the spelling, Its about the ride.

[Slyer]

This site is about Motorcycles and riding Motorbikes , Its not about the spelling, Its about the ride.

Bahahahaha!
I almost believed you for a second.

[Mikkel]

My point was that having a degree doesn't make someone bright. More that the more stupid amongst us that do have degrees feel that the degree makes them more clever than they are - to which your (reposted) link alludes.

Some degrees are difficult and do require higher than average intelligence and/or effort to complete inside the alloted time. We're not talking about your average BAs though...

One thing that irks me though; the lame debate about "university of life" versus the university degree. Somehow, someone has - through some inferiority complex or other - convinced themselves that people who get a university degree doesn't live their lives in the meantime. Speaking from personal experience, that about as far from the truth as you can get.
Also, In my experience there is an equal distribution of idiots, good bastards, social misfits, arrogant wankers, hard workers, gentlemen/ladies, immoral cretins, honest blokes, etc. in pretty much all walks of life. Trying to generalise about the character of people in this regard is a best ignorance.

Nope. Quite the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

The less ignorant someone is, generally the less capable one feels. The biggest crime of the last 50 years was the "Me" generation telling their kids they could do and be anything and that being "happy" is the chief goal of life.

I don't have a degree and I don't care whether or not someone else has one either. People who make it an issue need to ask themselves about their own insecurities, but having a degree or at least some form of formalised "study" will open doors. Why it shuts doors in NZ is a mystery to me, but certainly accounts for why NZ struggles to retain decent graduates and business people.

There are plenty other things that helps to motivate capable people into leaving NZ. The most obvious one would be relatively lower salaries. But there are other less materialistic concerns too e.g. lack of decent childcare facilities means that female professionals will have a hard time raising young kids without putting their career on standby. It is exceedingly difficult to get a permanent job within research and being in your mid-thirties on soft-money (1 year contracts, continuation dependent upon further grants...) is a pretty shitty place to be if you would like to buy your own place.

That said. NZ is a wonderful place and compared to other parts of the world it hasn't entirely lost its humanity yet. All things considered we would much prefer to stay here and start a family - provided we can find a solution that makes sense.

Makes us sound like a bunch of hicks screaming "evil" at science...

It's a funny old thing. Yes, I've met a few high-brow intellectuals who sneer at the mundane manual labours handled by the less-educated. However, these have been the exception and very rarely the most competent within their peer group. Most of them come from wealthy families where everybody in living memory have been too well-off for their own good - but ironically some of the most vocal of them come from very poor and/or dysfunctional families.
I bet the other side of the coin is pretty much just the same.

Anyway, that mentality goes hand in hand with a deeply seated reluctance to engage in long-term planning. The most frustrating thing about NZ is the prevalent shortsightedness that is dominating everything from public services and politics to private business ventures. I have no doubt that this plays a significant role in NZ's less than impressive economic growth compared to other OECD countries.

Ah, you mean like a jack of all trades...

Quite so. The ideal is to be a jack of all trades, and a master of one (or a few)

The expression is "jack of all trades, master of none". I like Ixions idea, but as all trades are getting more and more complex it becomes less and less realistic to fulfill that ideal.