Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Grammar Vigilante

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    The Grammar Vigilante

    Benjm wrote: What annoys you most about the following sentence?

    Support Your Local Food Bank's.
    Honestly, the camel case annoys me at least as much as the apostrophe.

    Yes, standards are important and yes, I was an extremely pedantic child (see my previous post) but I've just seen the video clip of this bloke and he strikes me as pathetic. THIS is the most important thing you could think to do with your life? He makes Lynne Truss look like Molesworth.

    Comment


      #27
      The Grammar Vigilante

      This seems apposite.

      (9 out of 10, with insufficient care taken on #4.)

      Comment


        #28
        The Grammar Vigilante

        I got 9 too, apparently failing to fall in with BBC standards re adding an extra S to names already ending with one to show the possessive.

        Agreed with #4, two of those answers are perfectly correct, not one.

        Comment


          #29
          The Grammar Vigilante

          There's no requirement for an apostrophe when referring to plural letters of the alphabet - one simply uses a capital, viz: 'How many Es are in your name?' But the compilers were too daft to proffer that as an option, so I predicted what they'd say to receive full marks.

          Obviously the English language has many anomalies here (one being that 'its' used in the possessive doesn't require an apostrophe, whereas 'Jim's' or 'Grandma's' would do), but a good, basic rule of thumb is that no plural requires an apostrophe. (The fact that it's occasionally considered acceptable by some to use one is neither here nor there.)

          I s'pose I don't get why being a stickler for this stuff is considered 'pedantic', while making a small mistake in maths, for example, well, 'isn't'. To me, committing a grammatical error is a bit like saying '10 x 10 = 97'. (Well, it's near enough, and everyone knows what I mean...)

          Comment


            #30
            The Grammar Vigilante

            8/10, and I call bullshit on the two I got wrong. (Is and Ts, and Richard Harris).

            Comment


              #31
              The Grammar Vigilante

              "To me, committing a grammatical error is a bit like saying '10 x 10 = 97'. (Well, it's near enough, and everyone knows what I mean...)"

              I don't think this really holds up, but I'm keen not to get into it as I don't think it's a constructive way to spend an evening when I could be googling brutalist war memorials in Eastern Europe, or looking at photographs of Eric Cantona.

              Comment


                #32
                The Grammar Vigilante

                Or, indeed, squirrels:

                Comment


                  #33
                  The Grammar Vigilante

                  If Shaw somehow got his wish and apostrophes were chucked, and spelling maid simpl, would it still look ugly as fuck, or would we now find pre Shavian sp and gramur to be madly archaic? Would we have massive problems with ambiguity getting rid of the '? It'd be a fuckload easier for non-native speakers to comprehend or write. We still cling to Norman bullshit for half our spellings, the 'Murican's were wise to listen to Webster banging on about '-our' etc and expunge.

                  Comment


                    #34
                    The Grammar Vigilante

                    Toby Gymshorts wrote: Or, indeed, squirrels:

                    Cor! Look at this Bobby Dazzler!

                    Comment


                      #35
                      The Grammar Vigilante

                      Joe Hart ^.

                      Comment


                        #36
                        The Grammar Vigilante

                        I recognize the squirrel's many contributions to mankind, but I can't help but suspect that EIM would become a chipmunk man fairly quickly, should geography permit.

                        Comment


                          #37
                          The Grammar Vigilante

                          Chipmunks are tasty. In both senses.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            The Grammar Vigilante

                            EIM wrote: "To me, committing a grammatical error is a bit like saying '10 x 10 = 97'. (Well, it's near enough, and everyone knows what I mean...)"

                            I don't think this really holds up, but I'm keen not to get into it as I don't think it's a constructive way to spend an evening when I could be googling brutalist war memorials in Eastern Europe, or looking at photographs of Eric Cantona.
                            Well, thanks for clearing that up.

                            It probably doesn't hold up - at least not pound-for-pound - but my use of 'to me' should indicate from where I'm coming with this. I find sh*tty grammar - especially in the printed word - highly irritating, even more so when people try to claim that it doesn't matter. It is also a fairly effective way of having one's words both misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              The Grammar Vigilante

                              I'm with Jah here.

                              You'll probably like this sort of thing, JW, which I stumbled across yesterday via a link from something else I read via this thread – The High Cost of Small Mistakes: The Most Expensive Typos of All Time.

                              Comment


                                #40
                                The Grammar Vigilante

                                Vulgarian Visigoth wrote: I'll be frank - when I read gaol in 2017 the first think that crosses my mind is 'pedantic public-school twat'. Which I know doesn't apply in this case. The pedantic twat bit, that is.
                                I'm not sure it's pedantic to express a preference for a variant spelling of a word which also has a far more widely-used spelling, is it? It's just weird. (No offence, Jah and Guy...)

                                I was also confused by Guy's deliberate misspelling of 'grammatically' on the previous page. I mean I assume it was deliberate, since he drew attention to it by putting a '(!)' right after it. Or was it a joke?

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  The Grammar Vigilante

                                  I didn't say it didn't matter. In fact I think I said, without reading back, that I find it very annoying. But it's a long stride from there to going out and fucking correcting it on shop signs. That's the bit I'm struggling with.

                                  The reason the maths comparison doesn't hold up, in my honest imho, is that that's either right or wrong. There's no shade of grey there. The written word is there to communicate, and as jarring as a misplaced apostrophe is, the message is still conveyed.

                                  Anyhoo.

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    The Grammar Vigilante

                                    I had this argument with a friend years ago over a punk rock fanzine written totally phonetically who took the same view as EIM. that the message was still conveyed. Thing was, it took longer to read the bastard thing and it drove me mad trying to figure the hell out what the author was trying to say. He thought I was being a snob about it.
                                    I'll buy a puzzle book if I need that kind of shit. Right now I'm mildly interested in reading an interview with The Fucking Cunts from Falmouth, or whomever, and wouldn't mind hearing their thoughts on animal rights and anarchism.

                                    It's a perfectly good language full of subtlety and nuance thanks to the grammar framework and if you mangle it so badly that it makes the reader not want to bother anymore, then you can piss
                                    right off.

                                    Leave it the fuck alone.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      The Grammar Vigilante

                                      I don't like seeing people with food stuck to their faces but I don't walk up to strangers and unbidden start dabbing at them with a spit moistened handkerchief. Thinking that Grammar Wanker's night time forays are a bit much isn't incompatible with preferring well written prose (as EIM has repeatedly said).

                                      Present company excepted of course, my experience is that people who get a big hard on correcting the grammatical mistakes of others aren't solely motivated by regard for the beauty of the language. It is a form of one-upmanship, assuming superiority over people for reasons that may not be their fault. It's the same with food and coffee enthusiasts a lot of the time.

                                      There is also a common misconception in the UK that moaning from a position of comfort is somehow a daring act of rebellion. I don't want to overplay it but that Grumpy Old Men/Women bollocks is the running dog of the Little Englander mindset that is currently taking us into the abyss. It's not good to sound like those people, even if your cause is, objectively, a justifiable one.

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        The Grammar Vigilante

                                        What Benjm (and EIM before) said, wholeheartedly.

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          The Grammar Vigilante

                                          EIM wrote: I didn't say it didn't matter. In fact I think I said, without reading back, that I find it very annoying. But it's a long stride from there to going out and fucking correcting it on shop signs. That's the bit I'm struggling with.

                                          The reason the maths comparison doesn't hold up, in my honest imho, is that that's either right or wrong. There's no shade of grey there. The written word is there to communicate, and as jarring as a misplaced apostrophe is, the message is still conveyed.

                                          Anyhoo.
                                          But an error-strewn message can be misinterpreted/misleading, is my point. Therefore, the message isn't always conveyed. (Yes, yes, I understand that 'technically' or 'scientifically', the maths/grammar comparison doesn't stack entirely.)

                                          As for some guy stealthily correcting these stupid errors by night, I just find that hilariously satisfying. (I mean, better him than me, obviously.) And, yes, it is a bit 'grumpy old man'-ish in its conceit and execution - but in this sh*tty excuse for a world in which we currently live, I don't object to that one iota.

                                          (Have to say I cannot see any comparison whatsoever with cleaning food from a stranger's face or whatever it was, which would probably be construed as common assault.)

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            The Grammar Vigilante

                                            Jah Womble wrote:
                                            Have to say I cannot see any comparison whatsoever with cleaning food from a stranger's face or whatever it was, which would probably be construed as common assault.
                                            Both are an uninvited intrusion. If you want to involve the law, unauthorised stickering, which is essentially what your boy is doing, can be treated as anti-social behaviour or, in more serious or persistent cases, criminal damage.

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              The Grammar Vigilante

                                              Yes, perhaps. But physical assault trumps it in my book. And most people's, I'd imagine.

                                              Plus, I think what fella-me-lad is doing can be viewed somewhat more leniently than the antics of Joe Schmoe and his papered-obliteration of windows, walls, doors, etc.

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                The Grammar Vigilante

                                                Jah Womble wrote: Yes, perhaps. But physical assault trumps it in my book. And most people's, I'd imagine.

                                                Plus, I think what fella-me-lad is doing can be viewed somewhat more leniently than the antics of Joe Schmoe and his papered-obliteration of windows, walls, doors, etc.
                                                The "apostrophiser" reminds of a very quirky (and wonderfully English) story that I remember hearing about 10 or 15 years ago and read about more recently (2012) in Backpass magazine: the disappearance of the apostrophe in Queen(‘)s Park Rangers.

                                                Recalling Alec Stock and QPR lost apostrophe.

                                                Up until the end of October 1967, it was Queen’s Park Rangers, as per the name of the area, Queen’s Park.



                                                But when the new-style match programme was launched (with the chequerboard, pared-down front page design) for the next game vs Burnley, the humble apostrophe had mysteriously vanished.



                                                At first, the apostrophe was only missing from the front page of the programmes, then, over the 1967-68 season the omission was progressively extended to all club material and by the time the 1968-69 close season got under way, it had totally gone AWOL. A small number of supporters asked why in subsequent years but their calls for tradition and grammatical justice were unheeded and no explanation was ever given…

                                                Until 2011, when after years of badgering the club*, chairman of the QPR supporters' association indyrs Steve Russell finally got an answer. It came from Ron Phillips, QPR club secretary between 1966-1989 and programme editor at the time. And the villain responsible for of the apostrophicide. Phillips casually explained that the apostrophe had been sacrificed on the altar of aesthetics (what a philistine!):

                                                I am red hot on grammatical misspellings caused by dropping apostrophes, but in this case it was simply an aesthetic decision. Apostrophes used in the titles of well-known locations look ugly. "Queens Park Rangers" as a title is much tidier than "Queen's Park Rangers" (in just the same way that "Regents Park" is easier on the eye than "Regent's Park"), or "Earls Court" is more digestible than "Earl's Court."

                                                A few months later, Ron Phillips confirmed his version to Backpass contributor Tony Incenzo. In an article titled "Queen’s Mark" in Backpass # 23, Phillips said:

                                                "I dropped the apostrophe in 1967 simply to make the club’s name look better. If you have QUEENS PARK RANGERS obn a big sign up on the wall and you put an apostrophe in there, then it spoils the look of it. That’s the only reason why I did it."

                                                Russell and others (notably club historian Gordon Macey) have been campaigning for the reinstatement of the apostrophe ever since but to no avail. In the same Backpass article, Russell wrote:

                                                The apostrophe should be restored because it is part of what we are and where we came from. We originated form Queen’s Park and it is vital that we eternally acknowledge that in our heritage and history. The website that I’m involved with has always included the apostrophe and will continue to do so. I hope that our club will sanction the apostrophe’s restoration in the near future.

                                                Ron Phillips also contacted ordinary supporters who wanted an explanation, such as the the letter below that appeared on this QPR forum:

                                                Post by imperium on Apr 18, 2011 at 7:58am

                                                I have received a letter from RON PHILLIPS - remember him - the best Secretary ever for QPR?

                                                I quote his letter which I think gives the definitive answer to the apostrophe conundrum, as follows:

                                                I was indeed the culprit who dropped the apostrophe. The clues are all there. I joined the Club as Secretary in October 1966 and took over as editor of the programme a few months later.

                                                When I arrived the programme consisted of a single, folded sheet of paper which just wasn't up to the standards of the team's fabulous successes at that time. I changed the format to something more substantial (and I designed the Little Men cover which has been so popular with Rangers supporters.

                                                Then I took a look at the club's title on the front cover and decided it had to be improved.

                                                It had absolutely nothing to do with the club coming from Queen's Park or even Queen Victoria. I am red hot on grammatical misspellings caused by dropping apostrophes, but in this case it was simply an aesthetic decision.

                                                Apostrophes used in the titles of well-known locations look ugly. "Queens Park Rangers" as a title is much tidier than "Queen's Park Rangers" (in just the same way that "Regents Park" is easier on the eye than "Regent's Park"), or "Earls Court" is more digestible than "Earl's Court"

                                                I have continued this policy in my present job as Artistic Director of Barons Court Theatre. When I started the theatre in 1991, the area was known as "Baron's Court" It just had to go !
                                                Thanks to the rising popularity of my theatre, everyone wries "Barons Court" nowadays - even the Tube has dropped the apostrophe !

                                                My apologies if my decision offended the traditionalists. I hope that before they vent their anger on me they will at least take into account my "Little Men" innovation and agree that not all I did while at QPR was bad.

                                                Ron Phillips - Secretary QPR 1966-1989


                                                Amazingly, Ron Phillips intervened himself on a QPR forum board during a wistful discussion on the missing Apostrophe. However, this time he was half-pointing the finger… at the printers:

                                                http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/queensparkrangers/forum/51925/1365389/ron-phillips/

                                                Ron Phillips speaking (Yes, the ex-QPR Secretary and Programme Editor - I don't get a lot of time playing at mid-field for Bury nowadays).

                                                Sorry to eavesdrop on the correspondence about me but I'm delighted to see there was nothing too derogatory!

                                                My brother, Peter, who still goes to Rangers occasionally, directed me to this site. I thought it was about time I cleared up the Mystery Of The Missing Apostrophe, or it will continue into the 22nd Century.

                                                Old timers will recall that, when I started the new, improved QPR programme in 1966, I designed a highly original cover for it, consisting of a chequer board, with the famous 'Little Men' on white squares of the board, alternating with the letters of Queen's Park Rangers.

                                                Our printers were very helpful but phoned me one day to ask for a decision about the apostrophe. The letters of the alphabet looked O.K. on the white squares but an apostrophe by itself on a white square looked silly. And, if they tried to put a letter and the apostrophe on a white square together, they would look squashed.

                                                Famous for my snap decisions, I said "Then drop the apostrophe. No-one will notice"...

                                                The new cover came out and everyone liked it (and, as I keep reminding people, we won the award for 'Best Programme In The Football League' two years running).

                                                The printers apparently liked it too because, one day, I noticed they had dropped the apostrophe from the Queen's Park Rangers title inside the programme.

                                                This looked O.K., so I decided to leave it as it was - otherwise we would have had to live with two different formats of QPR's name in the same programme.

                                                In addition, we were in the good company of Regents Park, Barons Court, Lloyds Bank, etc., who all possessed apostrophes originally.

                                                23 years went by and (as far as I can recall) no-one ever said a word about the missing apostrophe. I left QPR and, within a few months, the sky fell in upon me. Every Rangers fan on the planet seemed to be bewailing the loss.

                                                Anyway, there it is. My defence rests. You can change it back, of course, but I assure you that you will then receive hundreds of complaints about why you have decided to include an apostrophe in the club's name.

                                                You really can't win, you know.

                                                Anyway, best wishes to Rangers fans who may be reading this. It looks as if it will be a terrific season next time.

                                                Ron Phillips


                                                [*who admittedly may be forgiven for having had other fish to fry, we’re talking the omnishambles of QPR in the late Noughties here! 11 managers in 4 years, the Paladini-Briatore-Ecclestone soap opera etc., cf the excellent 4-year plan fly-on-the-wall documentary DVD if you haven't seen it, brilliant]

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  The Grammar Vigilante

                                                  Great post, Kev7!

                                                  Queen's Park FC still have an apostrophe and it does look messy (badgemakers sometimes omit it, presumably for that reason).

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    The Grammar Vigilante

                                                    Lang Spoon wrote: If Shaw somehow got his wish and apostrophes were chucked, and spelling maid simpl, would it still look ugly as fuck, or would we now find pre Shavian sp and gramur to be madly archaic? Would we have massive problems with ambiguity getting rid of the '? It'd be a fuckload easier for non-native speakers to comprehend or write.
                                                    Bit late to this, but I'm pretty sure that non-native speakers are significantly less likely to misplace apostrophes, or do the classic their/there/they're-style switcheroos, as when you learn a foreign language properly you actually have to learn the basic grammatical rules, rather than vaguely piss about with repeating stuff you hear. They/we obviously make mistakes, but not generally of that kind unless we've seen enough native speakers make them.

                                                    And removing apostrophes would actually make English more difficult to understand due to the added ambiguity, especially as it's a very loosely structured language to begin with.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X