Grammar slam

[Acker79]

I looked up the will/shall difference, and feel it would be cheating to give the answer, but the article ended with the comment that they are now accepted as interchangeable.

 

[Acker79]

You think English is easy??

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.

2) The farm was used to produce produce.

3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.

4) We must polish the Polish furniture..

5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.

6)I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.

7) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?

I always like:



If GH can stand for P as in Hiccough
If OUGH stands for O as in Dough
If PHTH stands for T as in Phthisis
If EIGH stands for A as in Neighbour
If TTE stands for T as in Gazette
If EAU stands for O as in Plateau
Then the right way to spell POTATO should be: GHOUGHPHTHEIGHTTEEAU

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I looked up the will/shall difference, and feel it would be cheating to give the answer, but the article ended with the comment that they are now accepted as interchangeable.

That's only because the teachers who taught ringmerseagulltoo and me the meaning of the word "pedant" have long since given up.

 

[Trufflehound]

6)I had to subject the subject to a series of tests, on a variety of subjects.

Edited, because you missed a trick.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

"The boy swam out to the buoy. Both boys/buoys (?) could be seen from the shore".

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Edited, because you missed a trick.

That's even better.

 

[KingKev]

Yeah, well, *sticks out tongue* I think you're wrong! And I DO say "The government are" as in "The government are wrong to gas badgers". Likewise I'd say "the team are playing well". I have noticed though that your incorrect construct is, sadly, gaining ground over here.

We're not going to agree then, Brovion.
I understand, rather than accept, that 'British' English allows for the use of either, but my "incorrect construct" is the original one. You obviously take the view that the relatively recent change to allow the plural form in British usage shows the flexibility of the language to evolve - I take the view that it is an aberration, with grammarians jumping through logical hoops to justify that when it is used, the speaker must be meaning to refer to all of the individual members of the collective group rather than the group itself. This is ok when done for political means - eg government referring to itself in the plural to indicate individual and collective agreement to policy - or when the speaker clearly intends to refer to all of the individuals acting collectively and is taking a linguistic short cut (the team are playing well instead of all of the members of the team are playing well), but generally it is a licence for lazy use of the language.
I will not accept having to assume that whenever someone uses your construct that they understand and mean what they are saying. Call me a cynic, but I am more than sceptical that this is the case - as abundantly evidenced on this forum....the Albion are playing well, but Barnes is sh@t and Chicksen is not good enough...

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Use of the plural form of verbs with singular nouns - "Brighton are...." "My team were".

Decline of the subjunctive...Use it or lose it, people.

The "Brighton is/were..." is a moveable feast for me, depending on the context: "Brighton is the greatest football team" and "Brighton were awful against Palace".

 

[Brightonfan1983]

Imagine if all possessives were indicated by 's and 'whose' hadn't evolved. Then somebody put whose on an internet forum. Wouldn't that then annoy you just as much? Probably, it would annoy you even more as it would be much less logical.

True. Just as much as someone saying 1+1=3. They're both wrong. End of.