la, während du sprechen ze Deutsch,

[Sir C]

do you ever get gender or case wrong? And if you do, do you get corrected?

[Luis Anaconda]

do you ever get gender or case wrong? And if you do, do you get corrected?

yes and ja - by some people. Most wouldn't give a ****

[Burney]

do you ever get gender or case wrong? And if you do, do you get corrected?

You can't get gender 'wrong' anymore. You can make it up as you go along.

[Luis Anaconda]

You can't get gender 'wrong' anymore. You can make it up as you go along.
:clap: good point well made. b

[Burney]

:clap: good point well made. b

Actually, language is the one place where I would fully support the dismantling of the concept of gender. The sort of bloody silly idea only foreigners could come up with.

[Ash]

Actually, language is the one place where I would fully support the dismantling of the concept of gender. The sort of bloody silly idea only foreigners could come up with.

It really is extremely silly. Have other European languages dispensed with this silly idea? Bloody Romans. :rolleyes:

[Burney]

It really is extremely silly. Have other European languages dispensed with this silly idea? Bloody Romans. :rolleyes:

It serves no purpose and obeys no logic, Get rid imo.

[WES]

It serves no purpose and obeys no logic, Get rid imo.

And I agree. Although it should be pointed out that English grammar is hardly the model of logic and consistency.

God I hated grammar, utterly illogical. :-(

[Ash]

And I agree. Although it should be pointed out that English grammar is hardly the model of logic and consistency.


Not to mention the spelling and the pronunciation.

[WES]

Not to mention the spelling and the pronunciation.

I think I failed every grammar test I ever wrote but did very well when it came to writing essays. :shrug: And I consistently got As in math and physics with very little effort, which tells me that grammar is a nonsense subject.

What sort of pervert knows what a past participle or a gerund is? :rolleyes:

[Burney]

I think I failed every grammar test I ever wrote but did very well when it came to writing essays. :shrug: And I consistently got As in math and physics with very little effort, which tells me that grammar is a nonsense subject.

What sort of pervert knows what a past participle or a gerund is? :rolleyes:


The sort of pervert whose job requires such knowledge? :shrug:

And I'm not surprised you failed grammar tests if you didn't even know that the correct contraction of 'mathematics' is 'maths'.

[WES]

The sort of pervert whose job requires such knowledge? :shrug:

And I'm not surprised you failed grammar tests if you didn't even know that the correct contraction of 'mathematics' is 'maths'.

Not in Canada or America it isn't. I went through three math courses at A level and a degree in physics without ever having heard it referred to as 'maths'. :shrug:

Which sort of emphasizes the point about grammar; how arbitrary it can be. If I can get an A writing an essay while not understanding any of it then it can't be important. :nod:

[Ash]

Not in Canada or America it isn't. I went through three math courses at A level and a degree in physics without ever having heard it referred to as 'maths'. :shrug:

Which sort of emphasizes the point about grammar; how arbitrary it can be. If I can get an A writing an essay while not understanding any of it then it can't be important. :nod:

I think there's a law of diminishing returns with grammar, and I expect it is largely intuitive to most of us with a decent grasp of the language, which is why one can construct decent sentences without formally knowing all the rules.

Although, I do quietly despair about the slow death of adverbs, and people saying "might of" instead of "might have". :cry:

[Sir C]

I think there's a law of diminishing returns with grammar, and I expect it is largely intuitive to most of us with a decent grasp of the language, which is why one can construct decent sentences without formally knowing all the rules.

Although, I do quietly despair about the slow death of adverbs, and people saying "might of" instead of "might have". :cry:

Dangling prepositions make me feel physically nauseous, by the glw, who knows of such matters, dismisses such concerns as erroneous, declaring that no such rules exist.

Who's going to argue with the glw, eh?

[WES]

I think there's a law of diminishing returns with grammar, and I expect it is largely intuitive to most of us with a decent grasp of the language, which is why one can construct decent sentences without formally knowing all the rules.

Although, I do quietly despair about the slow death of adverbs, and people saying "might of" instead of "might have". :cry:

Quite right - and we all have our pet peeves from a grammar perspective.

'irregardless' - this abomination was quite popular in Canada around the time I left. All I could do to not punch those who used it.

[Burney]

Dangling prepositions make me feel physically nauseous, by the glw, who knows of such matters, dismisses such concerns as erroneous, declaring that no such rules exist.

Who's going to argue with the glw, eh?

:nod: She's not the sort of person you argue with.

:-D

She is right, of course. All of these latinate 'rules' (including the split infinitive) are - linguistically-speaking - nonsense.

The do still grate, however.

[Sir C]

:nod: She's not the sort of person you argue with.

:-D

She is right, of course. All of these latinate 'rules' (including the split infinitive) are - linguistically-speaking - nonsense.

The do still grate, however.

One is offended when prose is inelegant, and now I have no idea how to complete this sentence in a suitably accurate, erudite and mellifluous fashion.

[Burney]

I think there's a law of diminishing returns with grammar, and I expect it is largely intuitive to most of us with a decent grasp of the language, which is why one can construct decent sentences without formally knowing all the rules.

Although, I do quietly despair about the slow death of adverbs, and people saying "might of" instead of "might have". :cry:

The first mistake of grammar is to think that there are clear 'rules'. There aren't because English isn't Latin. The only 'rule' is that one should be able to convey one's meaning comprehensibly and without ambiguity. Thus, one must use the correct words to convey your meaning; subject and verb must agree; and one must use the correct grammatical marks in the correct places in order to ensure your meaning is not obscured.

That's about it, really. Everything else is usage and interpretation. Even the first rule is up for grabs, since if enough people wrongly use 'enormity' to describe size or 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested', then that usage becomes correct. :shrug:

[Burney]

One is offended when prose is inelegant, and now I have no idea how to complete this sentence in a suitably accurate, erudite and mellifluous fashion.

Of course. But in order to know the difference, one has to have read fairly widely. Most people haven't and thus have a tin ear for prose.

[Sir C]

Of course. But in order to know the difference, one has to have read fairly widely. Most people haven't and thus have a tin ear for prose.

Fick cahnts.

[Peter]

The first mistake of grammar is to think that there are clear 'rules'. There aren't because English isn't Latin. The only 'rule' is that one should be able to convey one's meaning comprehensibly and without ambiguity. Thus, one must use the correct words to convey your meaning; subject and verb must agree; and one must use the correct grammatical marks in the correct places in order to ensure your meaning is not obscured.

That's about it, really. Everything else is usage and interpretation. Even the first rule is up for grabs, since if enough people wrongly use 'enormity' to describe size or 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested', then that usage becomes correct. :shrug:

Yet you slaughter WES for saying math instead of maths despite the fact that the meaning is in no way obscured.

Also, grammatically speaking, I dont think a short version of a word (maths instead of mathematics) is strictly a contraction. I am being pedantic here and, of course, english isnt Latin :)

I am drunk and its 1.30 in the morning here in Kuala Lumpur......

[Luis Anaconda]

The first mistake of grammar is to think that there are clear 'rules'. There aren't because English isn't Latin. The only 'rule' is that one should be able to convey one's meaning comprehensibly and without ambiguity. Thus, one must use the correct words to convey your meaning; subject and verb must agree; and one must use the correct grammatical marks in the correct places in order to ensure your meaning is not obscured.

That's about it, really. Everything else is usage and interpretation. Even the first rule is up for grabs, since if enough people wrongly use 'enormity' to describe size or 'disinterested' when they mean 'uninterested', then that usage becomes correct. :shrug:
I've been dealing with an Australian who insists on pointing our "grammatical errors" in a piece, which are nothing of the sort. He just keeps trying to stick in superfluous words and commas everywhere (to paraphrase, he insists that something such as "his hands and feet" should be "his hands and his feet"), while ignoring the fact that the thing that should concern them - ie the ****ing contact details for his clients - are entirely wrong. I am trying not to call him a ****

[Burney]

I've been dealing with an Australian who insists on pointing our "grammatical errors" in a piece, which are nothing of the sort. He just keeps trying to stick in superfluous words and commas everywhere (to paraphrase, he insists that something such as "his hands and feet" should be "his hands and his feet"), while ignoring the fact that the thing that should concern them - ie the ****ing contact details for his clients - are entirely wrong. I am trying not to call him a ****

As I say, most people are utterly tone deaf when it comes to writing, but this never stops them weighing in with their pox-ridden opinions about the writing of others. Pricks.

[redgunamo]

yes and ja - by some people. Most wouldn't give a ****

All they seem to talk about is the weather anyway nowadays.