[Help] Grammar Police - Question

[Murray 17]

Says whom?

Were you ever taught it at school? Have you ever seen it written?

As we become 'lazier' speakers, abbreviations and short cuts creep into conversations, but that doesn't mean it's correct. 'Text speak' is a good example of communication that's all about brevity.

 

[kemptown kid]

Says whom?

You'd've been wiser to ask, 'Says who?'

 

[The Large One]

Were you ever taught it at school? Have you ever seen it written?

As we become 'lazier' speakers, abbreviations and short cuts creep into conversations, but that doesn't mean it's correct. 'Text speak' is a good example of communication that's all about brevity.

Yes, I was taught it, and yes, I have seen it. And it is perfectly OK.

This has nothing to do with 'textspeak' (that, by its very nature, would mean people wouldn't punctuate it properly anyway), and everything to do with perfectly legitimate written English.

 

[dazzer6666]

Were you ever taught it at school? Have you ever seen it written?

As we become 'lazier' speakers, abbreviations and short cuts creep into conversations, but that doesn't mean it's correct. 'Text speak' is a good example of communication that's all about brevity.

Blimey......not sure whether something being taught something at school is a good guide to what's correct or not.......I've learned a few things since then personally. Use of language also evolves - so something may become 'correct' over time.......oh, and my niece, a schoolteacher, writes 'would of'

You'd've looks a bit unwieldy but "'d've" is in the Cambridge Dictionary

 

[Bakero]

Were you ever taught it at school? Have you ever seen it written?

As we become 'lazier' speakers, abbreviations and short cuts creep into conversations, but that doesn't mean it's correct. 'Text speak' is a good example of communication that's all about brevity.

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

We don't have an equivalent of L'Académie française telling us what's right and what's not.

 

[Robinjakarta]

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

Not so. Could/Should of .. isn't correct.

 

[Murray 17]

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

We don't have an equivalent of L'Académie française telling us what's right and what's not.

Seriously?

So you can use abbreviations, street talk and any other poor use of the English language, and if you fail your English GCSE appeal on the grounds of 'common usage'?

I don't mean that to sound flippant, but can you see where we are heading with that idea?

 

[Robinjakarta]

Not acceptable in writing generally but in speech it's very common. In text messages or a forum post a double contraction is fine.

Yes. In writing, it's very informal.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

We don't have an equivalent of L'Académie française telling us what's right and what's not.

Yes we do. It's called NSC

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

We don't have an equivalent of L'Académie française telling us what's right and what's not.

I'd argue that if people are saying or writing it, then that's what English is, and no more than that. Academic opinion is moving away from ideas of what is 'correct' - from prescriptive grammar to descriptive, if you like.

 

[The Large One]

Correctness in English is governed by common usage. If people are saying it or writing, it's correct.

Twaddle.

We still have rules in English. It's not a free-for-all, with rules arbitrarily concocted by 'people' based on ignorance or laziness.

Yes, it's an evolving language, but to fabricate a notion that 'if people are saying it, it's correct' has no value.

 

[Murray 17]

One thing you learn after being on NSC for a while, is that you can find someone, to say anything, claim it is true, and back it up with their own 'indisputable' evidence.

 

[Colonel Angus]

You'd've

Saw this in another post - Is this legal?

I'd like to think I'm well versed in where to put my apostrophes and the above example is using them to identify letters removed.
However, I've never seen 3 words joined in this way e.g. You would have

So, is it acceptable?

It's YouGov.

 

[SouthCoastOwl]

You'd've

Saw this in another post - Is this legal?

I'd like to think I'm well versed in where to put my apostrophes and the above example is using them to identify letters removed.
However, I've never seen 3 words joined in this way e.g. You would have

So, is it acceptable?

Yes, a double contraction is allowed. Agreed, it does look a bit funny but it is a genuine thing.

 

[GT49er]

One thing you learn after being on NSC for a while, is that you can find someone, to say anything, claim it is true, and back it up with their own 'indisputable' evidence.

We're still waiting for your indisputable evidence (or source)!

 

[looney]

Udunwot.

 

[looney]

Twaddle.

We still have rules in English. It's not a free-for-all, with rules arbitrarily concocted by 'people' based on ignorance or laziness.

Yes, it's an evolving language, but to fabricate a notion that 'if people are saying it, it's correct' has no value.

Except Portmanteaus, a rule to break rules.

 

[Bakero]

Twaddle.

We still have rules in English. It's not a free-for-all, with rules arbitrarily concocted by 'people' based on ignorance or laziness.

Yes, it's an evolving language, but to fabricate a notion that 'if people are saying it, it's correct' has no value.

Who invented these rules you speak of?

 

[GT49er]

Who invented these rules of which you speak?

...

 

[Bakero]

...

Whoosh