[Politics] Brexit

[BigGully]

I'm not involved in the argument but people should rightly be corrected. How else will they learn the fundamentals of English language?

Says you, who posted your usual drivel.

How any poster can feel it is relevent to correct another posters spelling or grammar especially as it seems the original correction itself was incorrect is ludicrous.

How they cannot even begin to imagine that other posters irrespective of their views most likely see them as grade 'A' knobs is beyond me.

 

[The Clamp]

While I am not keen on people replacing "have" with "of" it is increasingly commonplace and I can see in a few decades it being accepted. Such is the way with many words. As long as specific doesn't morph into pacific, I can live with it. However, the two words in question are not interchangeable as yet and that should be observed.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Says you, who posted your usual drivel.

How any poster can feel it is relevent to correct another posters spelling or grammar especially as it seems the original correction itself was incorrect is ludicrous.

How they cannot even begin to imagine that other posters irrespective of their views most likely see them as grade 'A' knobs is beyond me.

I think you have been on NSC long enough to know the greatest and most heinous crime is incorrect grammar and the funniest post is a fish pun. Do lighten up.

 

[alfredmizen]

While I am not keen on people replacing "have" with "of" it is increasingly commonplace and I can see in a few decades it being accepted. Such is the way with many words. As long as specific doesn't morph into pacific, I can live with it. However, the two words in question are not interchangeable as yet and that should be observed.

"Of" instead of "have" is an abomination on a par with "can I get"

 

[beorhthelm]

So, in 1992, all those countries which formed part of geographical Europe, which had been in existence for a few millennia, were suddenly not Europeans. I think it would be more correct to differentiate between Europeans and citizens of the EU.

you're quite right, fact is as it stands the adjective for referring to people of the EU is European. until someone comes up with a new word, we have to recognise the difference from the context.

 

[studio150]

While I am not keen on people replacing "have" with "of" it is increasingly commonplace and I can see in a few decades it being accepted. Such is the way with many words. As long as specific doesn't morph into pacific, I can live with it. However, the two words in question are not interchangeable as yet and that should be observed.

The usual excuse from those that make an error English is a living language and changes occur. This is code for dumbing the language down.
How many on here are annoyed that the 50th birthday of Star Trek celebrated recently is also a celebration of the most used split infinitive

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The usual excuse from those that make an error English is a living language and changes occur. This is code for dumbing the language down.
How many on here are annoyed that the 50th birthday of Star Trek celebrated recently is also a celebration of the most used split infinitive

Shouldn't it be who?

 

[beorhthelm]

Shouldn't it be who?

and "Should it not be..." if we want to be really be fussy, you'd never actually say "Should not it" would you? thats why its a living language. (and screw the caps)

 

[Hastings gull]

Have you seen the state of Edukasion in this country? It's ruddy awful. My 26 yr old daughter has a very well paid office job and a whole batch of certificates from her schooling, yet doesn't know the basics of English grammar. Its not taught at school now. So does that then make her illiterate? And then is it her fault or the 'system'?

Whereas I left school at 16 with sweet FA, 35 years ago or so, I'm a blue collar worker and yet have a far better grasp of the English language than she does.

So on that basis she, nor me, are allowed to voice an opinion on this forum about Brexit or Trump or anything else you consider 'high brow'?? Maybe we can have it headed with "Masters Degree Only" That suit you?

Ironically, it is not the state of education now, as Spag has been re-introduced into primary schools, and my 7 year-old-granddaughter will sit a national test on this in May. Spag stands for spelling and grammar. After years of trendy educationalists telling us that knowledge of grammar was not important, the result is what you are describing with your daughter. It was not her fault.
As a teacher of German for many years, where grammar is much "tighter" than English, I regularly see incorrect grammar on here, but we are all different, with varying talents and weaknesses, and so never comment on it. Plus those of us younger than, very roughly, 50, will not have been taught grammar at school by and large.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Really ?
I work with many disadvantaged people and I have complete respect for their opinions. Your good fortune in acquiring a good education does not make me give you more respect. Sorry.

If you're saying that BigGully is disadvantaged then of course we should all make allowances for him. If it's just a case of him not showing much respect for our glorious language then perhaps not.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

and "Should it not be..." if we want to be really be fussy, you'd never actually say "Should not it" would you? thats why its a living language. (and screw the caps)

(And the apostrophes.)

 

[portlock seagull]

Says you, who posted your usual drivel.

How any poster can feel it is relevent to correct another posters spelling or grammar especially as it seems the original correction itself was incorrect is ludicrous.

How they cannot even begin to imagine that other posters irrespective of their views most likely see them as grade 'A' knobs is beyond me.

You mean "nobs"

 

[BigGully]

You mean "nobs"

yes ''nobs'' ....

 

[smeg]

Before calling someone else out on their use of the English language, you should really consider your own use of quotation marks.

The correct reposte should have been: it's "would have" not "would of". So maybe an English course for both of you would be productive.

Actually I suspect the correct reply should have been: "would have", not "would of".

 

[PWA]

In - Because Murdoch wants us out as he can't control the EU in the way he controls our politicians.

Out - Because the IN campaign is so negative, just doom and gloom about leaving, never anything positive about staying.

In other words, I just don't know. I thought I was a definite "in" but, as Lawson said on the Marr show, most countries in the world are not in the EU and they seem to be doing OK so why shouldn't we?

And that's why the country voted out.

Two negative campaigns with the Remain slightly more negative than the Leave.

As a remain voter I could see the negativity would make the vote go the other way.

 

[The Clamp]

The usual excuse from those that make an error English is a living language and changes occur. This is code for dumbing the language down.
How many on here are annoyed that the 50th birthday of Star Trek celebrated recently is also a celebration of the most used split infinitive

I take your point and there are two schools of thought on that I learned while doing a TEFL course some years ago. I like evolution of language but I prefer he correct grammar to be used in times of common acceptance. If it changes so be it, at present have is correct, of is not. Therefore it's have all the way for me. For now.

 

[Baldseagull]

I take your point and there are two schools of thought on that I learned while doing a TEFL course some years ago. I like evolution of language but I prefer he correct grammar to be used in times of common acceptance. If it changes so be it, at present have is correct, of is not. Therefore it's have all the way for me. For now.

The evolution of the meaning of literally, to not mean only literally but also figuratively is the one that grips my shit.

 

[Billy the Fish]

The usual excuse from those that make an error English is a living language and changes occur. This is code for dumbing the language down.

My other half studied linguistics and she would firmly disagree with you on this point. All language is constantly evolving.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My other half studied linguistics and she would firmly disagree with you on this point. All language is constantly evolving.

Of course it is. There isn't a point in time where someone said "right, that's it, it's finished."

That said, have hasn't evolved into of. So let's continue to use it as a stick to beat the lesser educated.

(Joke)

 

[Billy the Fish]

The evolution of the meaning of literally, to not mean only literally but also figuratively is the one that grips my shit.

Jamie Redknapp's fault!

In the last 50 years has there been any other family who've had a bigger effect on the English language than the Redknapps?

I often hear people on the TV and radio using a common Harry Redknappism when describing a footballer as a TOP TOP player. It really gets on my tits, will we soon need the term TOP TOP TOP player just so we can distinguish between your average TOP TOP player and those slightly better than a TOP TOP player?