Pedants United

[MJMcCready]

American and British English are more different from each other than you might think, but who is to say we are more correct than the Americans

Some American usages and spellings are actually older (and therefore more "correct"?) than current British ones. "Gotten", for one. And "tires" for "tyres" - which I didn't know about until quite recently.

Correctness doesn't apply to linguistic constructs. It's generally accepted that the English language being taught to them was dialectical, mostly from London and it's surrounding areas.

[Nick Ivell]

Sorry to be pedantic, even on this thread, but one of those it's I like, and one I don't.

[Paul Habershon]

Sorry to be pedantic, even on this thread, but one of those it's I like, and one I don't.

Nick, this thread is the last place to be apologising for distinguishing it's from its. For all the talk of correctness not existing, I believe that straying from generally accepted usage is what I would usually describe as incorrect. How much it matters is another issue. I like to follow the rules of golf even in a friendly game, so if a kind opponent invites me to ignore one of my many possible transgressions, e.g. an air shot, usually with the golf cliché 'We're not playing for the crown jewels', I then wonder politely which other rules we shall agree to ignore. It can all too easily end in a mess and the wrong result, so what was the point of keeping score?

Similarly in our writing, if we aren't going to bother about it/it's, what other usage are we going to ignore? Pedantic maybe but I try to be nice about it, respecting those who see no importance in accurate language. Mark, I think you were betrayed by predictive text!

[Alex McFarlane]

I should of realised that predictive text can give very unique outcomes.

Getting two of my pet hates in one sentence.

[Roger de Coverly]

Similarly in our writing, if we aren't going to bother about it/it's, what other usage are we going to ignore?

Aren't those who set exam standards responsible at least in part for this? I had the impression that when one took exams in the 1960s, that poor spelling and punctuation would be a cause of lost marks even in subjects not directly related to English language or literature.

When did spelling get standardised? I recall that attempting to study Chaucer was almost like reading a foreign language, whereas Shakespeare and the King James bible were comprehensible if archaic in places. But was the spelling of these changed from their first publication in the 1590s and 1600s?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Gotten"

Yes - that was proper English a few centuries ago, interesting that USA retained that and we didn't. Some US spellings (omitting the "U") make sense. I already mentioned colorimeter, there's also "labour"/"labor", but the English word "laborious", so the US spelling is at least consistent.

It's annoying when people say something was the "very best ever" (try "best"), or "almost unique" - either they're unique or they're not.

I seem to recall some sort of eatery at an airport (Gatwick?), where the eatery was called "Apostrophe" and it had an apostrophe rotated clockwise through 90 degrees above it. I thought they would have done better to call it "Apo'strophe". It would have made some passengers laugh!

[Paul Habershon]

Similarly in our writing, if we aren't going to bother about it/it's, what other usage are we going to ignore?

Aren't those who set exam standards responsible at least in part for this? I had the impression that when one took exams in the 1960s, that poor spelling and punctuation would be a cause of lost marks even in subjects not directly related to English language or literature

Yes, there was a gradual dumbing down when teacher training, at the expense of academic rigour, emphasised the importance of neither boring children nor lowering their self-esteem. Commendable aims but there was a down side.

I had to do French proses (translating English into French) at O Level. I'm fairly sure they are not even part of A Level now. Too difficult? I accept that foreign linguists may well be able to justify the change. However, a demanding and instructive exercise has been lost in schools.

Watch out! This may get political.

[NickFaulks]

Aren't those who set exam standards responsible at least in part for this? I had the impression that when one took exams in the 1960s, that poor spelling and punctuation would be a cause of lost marks even in subjects not directly related to English language or literature.

Yes, by the latter part of the 20th century teachers were telling their students that nobody cared about these things any more. My own firm was hiring at that time and typically got over twenty applications per space - the first filter was that those filled with spelling and punctuation errors were rejected. Sad, but perhaps they all got jobs in teaching.

[Ian Thompson]

I had to do French proses (translating English into French) at O Level. I'm fairly sure they are not even part of A Level now. Too difficult? I accept that foreign linguists may well be able to justify the change. However, a demanding and instructive exercise has been lost in schools.

The downside of foreign language O Levels was that hardly any of the exam required the examinee to demonstrate that they could speak the language. If I remember correctly there was only 10 minutes of having a conversation in the language. It counted for a small proportion of the total marks available across all parts of the exam so poor performance in it would not prevent a good overall exam result.

[Nick Ivell]

I used to love French proses. They were a real test of grammatical skill.

[Paul Habershon]

I should of realised that predictive text can give very unique outcomes.

Getting two of my pet hates in one sentence.

In accord on both counts, Alex. Even the ultra liberals surely cannot condone should of for should've. Normally 'should have', but 'should've' may be appropriate for informal use or for reproducing direct speech, e.g. in a novel.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Let's not forget "your" when it should be "you're".

[Nick Ivell]

A dislike of mine is the dialectical youse. Normally I like dialects, but not that particular usage.

Luckily I don't hear it much in the chess world.

[Roger de Coverly]

I had to do French proses (translating English into French) at O Level. I'm fairly sure they are not even part of A Level now. Too difficult?

Easy enough to use Google translate or similar. Rather more difficult to disguise the use of an engine!

[Pete Morriss]

Rarely good to use superfluous words, in my opinion.

I agree strongly. I therefore get annoyed when almost every chess commentator seems to say, of white players in an Armageddon, that they "are in a must-win situation", instead of simply that they must win (or, maybe better, that they have to win). Why do they use nine syllables when they can say the same thing with two or three?