Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Spelling and grammar
Not really a news item so much but more a general, present day topic of annoyance.
Why can't people spell properly? Why can't people use the right words in the right places?
I'm noticing more and more these days that people don't actually write the words they mean, but instead, replace them with other words that mean something completely different.
Examples would be using the word loose instead of lose, board instead of bored, aloud instead of allowed and to instead of too.
I don't mean to criticise anyone in particular but it happens in abundance on this very site.
When I was at school, spelling and grammar was deemed very important. Is it only me that gets the impression these standards have gone out the window and such mistakes allowed to pass by with alarming regularity?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gevs1966. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oneeyedvic - currently teach y6 - 10 +11 year olds, but know the problem is throughout school.
Sorry for the delay in answering - was preparing spelling lists for next week!
By the way - I am reaching the conclusion that could of is an example of a living language evolving and perhaps it ought to be accepted - it's pretty much what we all say, even if it's not what is meant. Does that make sense to anyone?
Sorry for the delay in answering - was preparing spelling lists for next week!
By the way - I am reaching the conclusion that could of is an example of a living language evolving and perhaps it ought to be accepted - it's pretty much what we all say, even if it's not what is meant. Does that make sense to anyone?
God, no! EssJay1: Why do we have to give in to the incorrect and bad usage in the young. The 'could ofs' of this world need to be taught the error they are making.
Sweeping generalisation coming up: In the UK the teaching standards have slipped (but that is no reflection on the individual teachers), and the examinations have become easier. That's bad enough, but, having let out some slack, don't let's allow students to get away with gross misuse of the English language. Fail them if necessary, and make them learn properly, repeat courses and resit exams. That's how things used to be 50 years ago.
Here's a question: In the foregoing context, have we progressed?
Sweeping generalisation coming up: In the UK the teaching standards have slipped (but that is no reflection on the individual teachers), and the examinations have become easier. That's bad enough, but, having let out some slack, don't let's allow students to get away with gross misuse of the English language. Fail them if necessary, and make them learn properly, repeat courses and resit exams. That's how things used to be 50 years ago.
Here's a question: In the foregoing context, have we progressed?
So how does the language change? What keeps our language alive, but Latin dead? Do you never accept that words can change meaning and usage?
What about:- gay, punk, wicked, cool, mouse?
What about new words to the language:- download, upload, e-mail (or should that be electronic mail) , wap, bluetooth?
The Elizabethans called children, chidders. What outcry was there when children was first used and began to gain acceptance? I hear "could of" more and more. I correct it as often as I can, but I still wonder - how long before "could of" becomes an accepted adaptation of a living language.
I agree with you, EssJay1, up to a point.
Not so long ago I had one of the classic English garammar books - Fowler or Partridge, I don't remember which - where 'burgle' was regarded as "a facetious back fromation from 'burglar'." The writer suggested that the correct form should be 'burgalrize.' And he wasn't American. The writer also excoriated the use of 'guerilla' as a noun, proferring 'guerilliero' instead.
Words change their meaning. 'Sensible' used to mean 'sensitive'. 'Want' (as a verb) meant ''lack', rather than 'desire', which is its more common meaning today. 'Feisty' used to mean 'malodorously flatulent', which is not quite its meaning today.
Some of the prescriptive rules of English grammar come from Latin scholars, the three most common being those regarding split infinitives, and beginning a sentence with a conjunction ('And did those feet in ancient time . . . ') or ending one with a preposition.
English, however, is a Germanic language, so those rules ought not to apply. I was taught that rules are flexible to the extent that they can be broken if adherence to them would break the flow of a sentence, or passage.
I don't, however, agree with you to the point of allowing should of, or gonna, or its even uglier offspring g'noo.
Please understand, I agree. As said before I correct children who use, either in writing or speech, should of or I done or we was - the latter two being in a different category, related to accented speech.
What no-one has answered is when, or how, do changes become accepted? We have a generation believing that could of is correct. How long does the battle continue?
BTW I do also correct spelling errors too.
What no-one has answered is when, or how, do changes become accepted? We have a generation believing that could of is correct. How long does the battle continue?
BTW I do also correct spelling errors too.
