PDA

View Full Version : Christmas presents for the Grammar Police



Phil E
16-12-15, 10:12
http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/15/17-christmas-gift-ideas-for-the-grammar-pedant-in-your-life-5567630/

Happy Christmas's :wink:

Camquin
16-12-15, 10:12
May I suggest someone send #13 to the new WR working group looking at simplifying the laws

Pegleg
16-12-15, 19:12
Why do people have such a problem with folk that like things to make sense? My grammer is not great, my typing is worse. I have no problem with correction.

Dixie
16-12-15, 20:12
I would of just sent of my order's, but the grammer police arrested me having seen me click you're link

Dickie E
16-12-15, 20:12
Why do people have such a problem with folk that like things to make sense? My grammer is not great, my typing is worse. I have no problem with correction.

I assume that your question is rhetorical. If not, I can answer it.

Taff
16-12-15, 22:12
I would of just sent of my order's, but the grammer police arrested me having seen me click you're link
I see what you did there. :biggrin:

tim White
17-12-15, 16:12
I had 'Grandma Police' - she was my primary school head teacher. :=

Wedgie
17-12-15, 17:12
Why Stannis Baratheon should have been the One True King of pedants


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRKU4-ZhHl8

:bday:

Phil E
17-12-15, 17:12
Why Stannis Baratheon should have been the One True King of pedants


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRKU4-ZhHl8

:bday:

Awesome.

OB..
17-12-15, 19:12
Why Stannis Baratheon should have been the One True King of pedants


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRKU4-ZhHl8

:bday:Fowler comments that "The use of less instead of fewer in front of plural count nouns is a feature of spoken English, but less so of the standard written language". There is an etymological rationale for making a distinction, but as far as I can see, no case that so-called misuse causes any confusion in meaning. There are more important fish to fry.

L'irlandais
21-12-15, 11:12
There are more important fish to fry.Quite.
:sarc:
May I suggest some ground rules for grammar policing on this forum :
When a sentence does not conform to [Accepted standard grammar] it will be flagged as [Ungrammatical]*. However given that is RRF not a language forum, perhaps folks might overlook errors unless they are misleading in terms of context. Nobody under the rank of Grammar Police Sergeant should be entitled to an opinion on matters grammatical. The presence of a GP Chief superintendent is required before any forum member can be taken out of a discussion thread to be shot.

*Where Ungrammatical is understood to mean grammatically incorrect or awkward; not conforming to the rules or principles of grammar or accepted usage.

Wedgie
01-01-16, 11:01
I heard Barry Cryer on the radio yesterday...

"Q. Who led the Pedant's Revolt? A. Which Tyler" :smile:

Ricardowensleydale
07-01-16, 01:01
There is an etymological rationale for making a distinction, but as far as I can see, no case that so-called misuse causes any confusion in meaning. There are more important fish to fry.

The problem in our hospital is that we have less qualified nurses.

Dickie E
07-01-16, 02:01
The problem in our hospital is that we have less qualified nurses.

a nice example.

How would we interpret:

"A feature of our hospital is that we have more qualified nurses" ?

crossref
07-01-16, 10:01
The problem in our hospital is that we have less qualified nurses.

nice

but it's only a little bit ambiguous - I think almost everyone would understand that "less" qualifies "qualified" :)

crossref
07-01-16, 10:01
I heard Barry Cryer on the radio yesterday...

"Q. Who led the Pedant's Revolt? A. Which Tyler" :smile:

:)
.. but you mean Pedants' Revolt

Ricardowensleydale
07-01-16, 22:01
nice

but it's only a little bit ambiguous - I think almost everyone would understand that "less" qualifies "qualified" :)

It's the "almost" that is the issue.

Pegleg
08-01-16, 08:01
nice

but it's only a little bit ambiguous - I think almost everyone would understand that "less" qualifies "qualified" :)

Really? See how the Dail Heil would use such a headline!

OB..
08-01-16, 12:01
The problem in our hospital is that we have less qualified nurses.Yes, technically ingenious, but stilted and unhelpful. Such a sentence would get its actually intended meaning from its context.

"In our hospital, 50% of our nurses are nurse-practitioners."
"We have less qualified nurses."

"In our hospital we have 150 qualified nurses."
"We have less qualified nurses."

In both cases "We don't have that many", would have been more colloquial and more direct.

You may argue that it would be useful to have a distinction between "less" and "fewer", but in practice we don't.

Rich_NL
08-01-16, 14:01
There are more important fish to fry.

Do you mean that there are many more important fish to fry, or much more important fish to fry?

;)

Ricardowensleydale
08-01-16, 17:01
"In our hospital we have 150 qualified nurses."
"We have less qualified nurses."

.

"In our hospital we have 150 qualified nurses"
"We have 100 less qualified nurses"

How many nurses do they have? Is it a bad hospital or a really bad hospital?

If the headline read "Hospital to operate with less qualified nurses", would that be helpful?

Phil E
08-01-16, 17:01
African or European Nurses? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2R3FvS4xr4)

OB..
08-01-16, 17:01
"In our hospital we have 150 qualified nurses"
"We have 100 less qualified nurses"

How many nurses do they have? Is it a bad hospital or a really bad hospital?

If the headline read "Hospital to operate with less qualified nurses", would that be helpful?All good academic fun, but anyone who relies on the supposed distinction between "less" and "fewer" to get their meaning across is likely to fail.

crossref
08-01-16, 17:01
All good academic fun, but anyone who relies on the supposed distinction between "less" and "fewer" to get their meaning across is likely to fail.

few would do

tim White
08-01-16, 18:01
A punch line that Less Dawson would be proud of

Rushforth
08-01-16, 18:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0zNWswcqMg

Dickie E
08-01-16, 21:01
I have less than $50 in my wallet

or

I have fewer than $50 in my wallet

Rushforth
08-01-16, 22:01
http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/992333/8731.htm

Countability is of the essence, but 'For instance, money is countable, but the word money is not usually used as a countable noun – we do not say, "one money, two moneys (or monies)." Thus, we speak of "less money," not "fewer money." On the other hand, we do count "one penny or one dollar, two pennies or two dollars." Thus, the correct comparative term is fewer pennies or fewer dollars (but see the next paragraph).'

didds
08-01-16, 23:01
I have less than $50 in my wallet

or

I have fewer than $50 in my wallet

"I've got $49"

didds

Ricardowensleydale
09-01-16, 10:01
On a similar thread, I noted that dictionaries have started adding "figuratively" as one of the definitions of "literally", although, apparently, this has been going on for some time.

Ricardowensleydale
09-01-16, 11:01
I have less than $50 in my wallet

or

I have fewer than $50 in my wallet

If dollars only came in ones, fewer, but they don't so either. The dollar is both a unit and a cumulative amount.

Wedgie
10-01-16, 09:01
:)
.. but you mean Pedants' Revolt

My cap is duly doffed and I retire to the corner, tail firmly between my legs.....

Dixie
11-01-16, 14:01
"I've got $49"

didds I can sub you until payday if that's not enough

Dickie E
21-01-16, 01:01
the phrase "please respond to my question in a timely manner".

Is it OK to say "please respond to my question timely"?

I deal with some O/S people who don't speak English as a first language (Chinese).

They use "timely" in lieu of "in a timely maner". It sounds wrong but is quite efficient.

4eyesbetter
21-01-16, 01:01
It's ungrammatical but it's pretty obvious what it means.

Dickie E
21-01-16, 01:01
It's ungrammatical but it's pretty obvious what it means.

I wonder why. We'd be OK with "run to the shop quickly". Is it because quick is an adjective but time is a noun?

OB..
21-01-16, 01:01
I wonder why. We'd be OK with "run to the shop quickly". Is it because quick is an adjective but time is a noun?I think it is because "timely" is an adjective, even though it has the form of an adverb. The adverbial form is the archaic "timelily", but it sounds odd so we use periphrasis instead. "Holy" is another example.

Non-native speakers do not have that same sensitivity, so their phraseology sounds odd and makes you stop and think.

Dixie
21-01-16, 17:01
They use "timely" in lieu of "in a timely maner". It sounds wrong but is quite efficient. I get this quite often from native speakers, and like you I don't like it because it sounds wrong. I'm not at all sure it is incorrect, however.

The Scots do this well, using the adjective Timeously, which sounds better than the Timelily that OB rightly derides as archaic. So they would say that they submitted their homework timeously - which is more elegant than "in a timely manner".

SimonSmith
21-01-16, 18:01
timeo timeous

Lee Lifeson-Peart
21-01-16, 18:01
I get this quite often from native speakers, and like you I don't like it because it sounds wrong. I'm not at all sure it is incorrect, however.

The Scots do this well, using the adjective Timeously, which sounds better than the Timelily that OB rightly derides as archaic. So they would say that they submitted their homework timeously - which is more elegant than "in a timely manner".

They submitted their homework on time..? Mebby?