English standards have not slipped

[Ethel]

A joy to read a grammatically correct quote in today's paper:

"Then I had to call the local farmer, from whom I rent the field, to come and help me with the situation. He was able to tell them who I was and explain that I was renting the field from him."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105978 0/Black-farmer-quizzed-police-THREE-times-susp icion-stealing-field.html

:)

[Rosetta]

Anotheoldgit, did I not do that with the quotation marks I used? As I recall from my distant uni days, quotations were placed inside quotation marks, not brackets.

[jno]

you're right, oldgit, but I think that's jake's point. As English is an international language, frills seen as unnecessary are stripped out. Etonians may understand the correct use of 'whom', and so do I; but those who learn English as a second language often don't get the hang of it (I exempt Swedeheart, whose English seems to be practically perfect in every way, though she's Swedish), and since its omission seldom leads to any misunderstanding they just don't use it. The Economist has a wide international circulation so its writers probably tty to simplify their language as much as possible too. Like semicolons, 'whom' has become a matter of personal style rather than of grammatical correctness.

[Ethel]

sallabananas

Your detractors know I'm a pedantic, pompous old bint so save their breath pointing out the obvious.

[jno]

PS oldgit, re your answer to Rosetta, if the farmer didn't talk in brackets (so to speak) you shouldn't add any when quoting him; that would be misquoting him. But you could write: "The farmer [...] to come and help me." That is, you could omit part of his spoken sentence, for whatever reason, but add square brackets - to indicate that they're yours, not his - and the ellipsis to tell readers that something has been omitted.

[Quinlad]

User manuals are often rewritten by UK-based copywriters. And they make the conscious decision not to include archaic language. It adds clarity.

Ethel, I don't think anyone would fail to understand a sentence with semi-colon or a 'whom'. It's down to taste. I think the point is that we shouldn't criticise those who don't use them. They're just not necessary anymore.

[Bbbananas]

Ethel - there's nothing wrong with being a pedantic pompous old bint. Though I'm sure you can be sexy too?!

[Quinlad]

jno, few journalists would bother to be that precise. If words are omitted but the sense remains the same, they'd not bother. Some would, most wouldn't.

If the actual quote was:

"Then I had to get on the phone and call the local farmer, from whom I rent the field, to come and help me with the situation in which I found myself."

..it would usually be deemed acceptable to lose "get on the phone and", "from whom I rent the field" and "in which I found myself" and leave no indication that they were ever there. So it would read:

"Then I had to call the local farmer to come and help me with the situation."

Square brackets would be used to frame a word that was inserted to cover for an omission. For example, if 'local farmer' had just been mentioned, you could say:

"Then I had to call [him] to come and help me with the situation."

I can't believe I just bothered writing this.

[keyplus90]

Eye Think, dat eye bettre staay away frum dis konversation.

[jno]

It depends what sort of journalist you are and who[m] you're interviewing, Quinlad. The average farmer might not care much. The average politician or celebrity might kick up a great stink about being misquoted and the journalist involved would be well advised to have the notes he or she took - or better still, a recording - for the purposes of self-defence. A good journalist will do the farmer the courtesy of treating his words with the same respect as a politician's. Of course, as we're talking about the Mail here...

[anotheoldgit]

Putting the lesson in English grammer aside, let's get back to the real reason I suspect Ethel posted this question, the fact that the police gave this farmer a hard time because he was Black.

This seems to be a case of bad communication between the police. Surely if it was found to be a perfectly innocent situation, it should have been phoned through as such, and an end put to anymore complaints.

We now come to the fact that he was reported just because he was Black. The public are told to be vigilant at all times, so yes I think he would have more chances of being reported because he stood out, in other words he didn't look the typical farmer. There must be many White people who have been subjected to similar treatment by over zealous police officers, when that person does not fit into the surroundings for whatever reason.

It's not all bad though, in his own country of Zimbabwe, if he was White he would be thrown off his farm.

[jno]

oldgit, Ethel never even mentioned his colour. That's your obsession, not hers.

[terambulan]

Ethel.....you can't be a 'bint'! That's a term for asian females, which I don't think you r ?

[Bbbananas]

I always thought 'bint' meant a bit of an old hag. A fag ash Lil with a fag hanging out her gob, with a muffin top hanging over her drawers. A bit of a tart, long past her prime...

I'm not any of the above. I'm not Asian either.
Ethel - identify-crisis we.... what are we if not bints?

[daffy654]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bint

[anotheoldgit]

Calm down Rosetta I was not criticising you.

Since you made a point regarding the passage in Ethel's question, what I was asking you, would it have been correct for that part of the passage to be enclosed in brackets?

So you see I was asking for your advise, not criticising you for enclosing it in quotation marks.

[jake-the-peg]

AOG - all the manuals where I work are authored here in the UK by native born Brits.

You will not find a whom or a semi colon unless it's in code.

We write to make it as clear as possible.

Not to show off how clever we are!

[sp1814]

anotheoldgit

There's a difference between being vigilant and being an ignoramus.

[tigerlily11]

I can never work out if a or note should state-
To whom it make concern or to who.
Who sounds wrong but then so does whom.

[squiff-e-y]

Ethel - old you may be. But you oooooooooooze sex appeal.

Where do you live? Near Croydon by any chance?

[Rosetta]

Well Ethel, there's a backhanded compliment for you LOL