You're and Your, etc.

[MacInWin]

Ian, that's what I get for posting at 4:05am. Wish I could claim that as literary brilliance, but it was just a sleepy mistake on my part. An old proofreaders' trick I have used is to read the document backwards. That way one see what is there, not what one expects to be there. Great for finding spelling errors. At 4 am, however, I was too weary to do that. Hence, missed an apostrophe. Hoist upon one's own petard.

 

[Slydude]

I have to agree about the lack of punctuation Jake. I can even see where authors of fiction/poetry might do that deliberately. It still makes for difficult reading. Try reading some of Faulkner's work for example. I remember seeing something once (As I Lay Dying maybe) where one paragraph took up a page and a half of a standard sized paperback with no punctuation. To this day I haven't read that book.

 

[toMACsh]

Languages morph over time, and English is able to handle the change. I remember in an English Lit class having to read the opening to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English. The opening four lines were: (Wow, that took some serious over-riding of the spell checker to type!)

Over time, as pronunciation changes, spelling does not keep up. Eventually, the spelling may change so that the letters actually reflect the phonics in use. But, in the interim, the word is not being pronounced as written, and I would posit that it is therefore being pronounced incorrectly. Going back to the initial example of this, that's one that might be difficult to "fix". (Yes, I put the period outside the quote mark intentionally.)

 

[MacInWin]

Pronunciation is the first, and most significant, drift, as you say. But consider "Ye Old Two Brewers," a pub in Shaftesbury, England. The "Y" in ye, is pronounced "th," or should be. I posit that most of us would say "Yee" rather than "The" on seeing the name. But the original purpose was to represent an English character known as the thorn, þ. Printers did not have a slug for the thorn and substituted the letter "y" in its place. You can see more at the second definition of ye here: Ye | Definition of Ye at Dictionary.com

So your assertion that by not pronouncing the word as written is incorrect is, in itself, not totally correct. As further consideration, which is the "correct" pronunciation, though, thought, cough, enough, bough, rough, plough, through, hiccough?

English gets tricky. It is so flexible that it can absorb words from other languages and dialects with ease, which at the same time makes it difficult for foreign learners to understand. But English tolerates the error of the new student and moves on to understanding, as Ratsima pointed out in post #24. But flexibility leads to drift and English drifts faster than just about any language on the planet. I suspect that if one were to time-travel 100 years into the future the English would be practically unreadable. It probably will morph into something closer to texting, with "classic" English reserved for stodgy old literature and maybe legal documents where precision of language is more important. Even legal documents of today are filled with archaic terms and usage. Just read any of those "agreements" we sign so quickly when we want to get on with the website!

 

[usagora]

...as further consideration, which is the "correct" pronunciation, though, thought, cough, enough, bough, rough, plough, through, hiccough?...

Exactly. English is not as consistently pronounced as written, unlike, say, German, which is almost always pronounced as written (except for imported words from other languages).

 

[krs]

Exactly. English is not as consistently pronounced as written, unlike, say, German, which is almost always pronounced as written (except for imported words from other languages).

Assuming one knows what the special German letters stand for.

I had an American friend when I lived in Germany for a few years who could absolutely not be convinced that "Straße" was not pronounced 'strabe'
Knew her for four years and when I left to come back to Canada it was still 'strabe' for her.

 

[usagora]

Assuming one knows what the special German letters stand for.

I had an American friend when I lived in Germany for a few years who could absolutely not be convinced that "Straße" was not pronounced 'strabe'
Knew her for four years and when I left to come back to Canada it was still 'strabe' for her.

Yes, obviously I mean pronounced as written according to the alphabet of the German language

 

[nickyr]

My main issue is the use of the word "of" instead of "have". For example, "I could of done that". I mean, you wouldn't write "of you got the time please?" would you?

Also, the use of there instead of their or they're.

Anyway, how many (like me) re-read their posts over and over to ensure no mistakes and still worry they've made a howler?????

 

[badshoehabit]

I check but still miss spelling mistakes which is down to bad typing rather than not knowing (I hope!), and I do punctuate texts. Not to pull the heart strings but I had a benign brain tumour removed in 2010 and my spelling has taken a hit (I also suffer aphasia, especially when tired or stressed).

 

[MacInWin]

My pet peeve is "try and," as in, "I am going to try and be a better person." No, you might try TO be a better person, but nobody will ever "and be." Not a verb.

 

[toMACsh]

My main issue is the use of the word "of" instead of "have". For example, "I could of done that". I mean, you wouldn't write "of you got the time please?" would you?

Also, the use of there instead of their or they're.

On the first one above, when written out, those would be contractions: could've, should've, would've. When spoken, it often sounds like "of".

I'm right there with you on #2.

My pet peeve is "try and," as in, "I am going to try and be a better person." No, you might try TO be a better person, but nobody will ever "and be." Not a verb.

What about the "splits"? (like Star Trek's "to boldly go...")


Another one I try to correct when I say it is using "there's" when it should be "there are".

 

[MacInWin]

Yeah, the split infinitives are bothersome, although, as long as there is not ambiguity about what it means, it seems to be becoming acceptable. "To boldly go" is ambiguous (is the "bold" in the going, or are they going with boldness?), so that one is bad. It is difficult, sometimes, to completely avoid (see?) splitting an infinitive without becoming a bit awkward. In that sentence, "completely to avoid splitting" makes the avoidance seem to be the completion, whereas "to avoid completely splitting" seems to pair the completion with "splitting." I suppose one could simply redo the entire sentence to be "It is difficult, sometimes, to avoid altogether ever splitting an infinitive without it becoming awkward." I suspect a good proofreader or editor would do exactly that change!

 

[IWT]

Oh there so many rules, many, most, very helpful in that they avoid ambiguity as Jake illustrated.

Prepositions should never appear at the end of a sentence; but as Winston Churchill is alleged to have said:

"Prepositions are the wrong words to end a sentence with"

Ian

 

[MacInWin]

That is something up with which one should not put.

 

[IWT]

Exactly, Jake. If only I understood what you were saying;D Point made!

Ian

 

[pm-r]

No, you might try TO be a better person, but nobody will ever "and be." Not a verb.

Ahhh yes..., the old "to be or not to be" comes to mind".



- Patrick
======

 

[IWT]

Ahhh yes..., the old "to be or not to be" comes to mind".

Or as the medics say: "TB or not TB, that is the consumption".

Ian

 

[usagora]

"To boldly go" is ambiguous (is the "bold" in the going, or are they going with boldness?)

Hmm. Not seeing the ambiguity in that example. What other way could that be understood than "to go in a bold manner"? I don't see the distinction between the two options you have in parentheses.

 

[MacInWin]

Jonathan, one could put the boldly first, as in "boldly to go" in which case the boldness is in just going at all, even if you are timid when you get going. Just the act of starting to go was bold. Or you could put the boldly last, as in "to go boldly" in which case you're bold as you go, even if you might have started out timidly making a slow decision, or even being forced to go. Hence, "to boldly go" is ambiguous. You don't know where the boldness should apply.

 

[usagora]

Jonathan, one could put the boldly first, as in "boldly to go" in which case the boldness is in just going at all, even if you are timid when you get going. Just the act of starting to go was bold. Or you could put the boldly last, as in "to go boldly" in which case you're bold as you go, even if you might have started out timidly making a slow decision, or even being forced to go. Hence, "to boldly go" is ambiguous. You don't know where the boldness should apply.

I really don't think we can warrant reading that much into the syntax. That's what context is for. But even by itself, I highly doubt most people would think "to boldly go" meant something other than "to go in a bold manner"--the meaning you're saying is only clear in the "to go boldly" construction. I see no difference in meaning between the two constructions. "boldly to go" sounds awkward or perhaps even archaic.

I honestly can't think of any split infinitives that would confuse me as to the intended meaning. It's usually a matter of style. Sometimes splitting the infinitive sounds a bit better and sometimes not splitting it does. Often splitting the infinitive gives a slight emphasis to the adverb. Sometimes splitting an infinitive would sound completely awkward, such as "Do you have to so loudly talk?" But the meaning is still clear.