The English Language

[time 8,599]

 

 

Right here's one that I can't seem to find a consistent answer to.

 

My surname is Smith, therefore if you're writing about my situation you would write 'Mrs Smith's situation'. But if my surname was Jones, would you write 'Mrs Jones' situation' or 'Mrs Jones's situation'?

 

And before you all call me thick, I'm never sure which lane I should be in to go straight across a roundabout, and I didn't know Morocco was in Africa until I was in my late twenties. So bollocks.

Historically, it was "Mrs Jones' situation" but "Mrs Jones's situation" is more favoured these days.

 

Language evolves, not always for the better.

 

Teaching in the U.K. is abysmal; that's why we are so far down the world ratings. My nephew was never corrected in class in the use of a double negative and it was left to myself to teach him. The first time he corrected his English teacher when she used a double negative he received a detention for being 'disrespectful'. I didn't do nothing means you did something and he didn't do anything wrong.

 

Churlish of me to point it out possibly, but that's an incorrect use of 'myself' there!

[Rotten Ali 600]

Probably better to have said something along the lines of "I took it upon myself to teach him"

[Paul Bearer 6,101]

Can't believe the amount the amount of people that use "of" instead of "have" . I wonder what their teachers were thinking.

[time 8,599]

Can't believe the amount the amount of people that use "of" instead of "have" . I wonder what their teachers were thinking.

Including a few contributors to this site!

[time 8,599]

A couple of usages of English that rile/irk/annoy me:

 

1) The use of the phrase 'for free' when referring to the (lack of) cost of something ("I got it for free"). As "free" in this sense means "for no charge" this translates to "I got it for for no charge". I know that this is how people speak and it is in general usage nowadays, but to me it just sounds wrong - "free of charge", "for nothing", or even just "free" work better.

 

2) The use of "up to" as in "up to 50% off" or "up to every 6 minutes". Its meaningless, just words to make something appear better than it is actually is.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

2) The use of "up to" as in "up to 50% off" or "up to every 6 minutes". Its meaningless, just words to make something appear better than it is actually is.

In a similiar vein: "Now less than £100", which of course means: £99.99. It's just advertisement speak. Just as politicians, the people who write such things ought to be flogged for being professional liars. In a sense the politicians are worse, since they invent new meaningless drivel to hide their horrible intentions every day.

[Handrejka 1,903]

Generally speaking most Americanisms don't cause me too much anxiety, but for some reason hearing a British person use "named for" rather than "named after" makes me recoil. I don't know why I find it so objectionable, but it's top of my list with the aforementioned have/of confusion for irksome utterances.

[Toast 16,137]

Generally speaking most Americanisms don't cause me too much anxiety, but for some reason hearing a British person use "named for" rather than "named after" makes me recoil. I don't know why I find it so objectionable, but it's top of my list with the aforementioned have/of confusion for irksome utterances.

 

For me it's the insidious spread of the word "bathroom" instead of toilet (or any of scores of available words - lavatory, loo, WC, etc etc).

 

"Going to the bathroom" has even become a synonym for urination or defecation, as with the child who "went to the bathroom in bed".

Or "I was so scared I nearly went to the bathroom in my panties" (and she didn't mean she tiptoed along the corridor in her undies).

[time 8,599]

 

Generally speaking most Americanisms don't cause me too much anxiety, but for some reason hearing a British person use "named for" rather than "named after" makes me recoil. I don't know why I find it so objectionable, but it's top of my list with the aforementioned have/of confusion for irksome utterances.

 

For me it's the insidious spread of the word "bathroom" instead of toilet (or any of scores of available words - lavatory, loo, WC, etc etc).

 

"Going to the bathroom" has even become a synonym for urination or defecation, as with the child who "went to the bathroom in bed".

Or "I was so scared I nearly went to the bathroom in my panties" (and she didn't mean she tiptoed along the corridor in her undies).

 

Bit like opening the door in your pajamas.

 

It amuses me that there are those who use the euphemism 'restroom'. I don't know anyone who ever went there for a rest!

[Guest awesome guest]

Fuck parking lots I go to car parks they're funner than a parking lot will ever be.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

Fuck parking lots I go to car parks they're funner than a parking lot will ever be.

Er.... fun? cripes, GAG. do you like, re-enact your fave car park scenes from 70s movies? ......to think people tell me I need to get out more =/

[Magere Hein 1,400]

 

Fuck parking lots I go to car parks they're funner than a parking lot will ever be.

Er.... fun? cripes, GAG. do you like, re-enact your fave car park scenes from 70s movies? ......to think people tell me I need to get out more =/

 

My guess is that watching people at a car park can be funny, in the same way that it can be funny to watch crews of yachts in a lock. I once spent a quite amusing afternoon in a beer garden next to the lock of Muiden. In Dutch, moving a ship through a lock is called schutten, but what most crews did was schutteren, which means act clumsily. The clasic mistake is this:

 

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

To be fair there's probably a lot less dogging action at your average lock though =/

[Dr_T 254]

On the apostrophe topic I think this is the accepted usage.

 

If a singular noun (or proper noun) naturally finishes with the letter "s" then the possessive will take an apostrophe s, e.g. a walrus's tusk or Mrs Jones's dilemma.

 

When a plural ends with a "s" the possessive will take just an apostrophe, e.g. the cars' exhaust fumes.

 

This is usually but probably not always consistent with the pronunciation. When you use 's you will use an extra syllable (-es) in the pronunciation to give the possessive, whereas when it is just the apostrophe there is no pronunciation shift away from the plural word. So my recommendation is that you write what you would do for the pronunciation, which is pretty much the idea with punctuation after all.

[Toast 16,137]

On the apostrophe topic I think this is the accepted usage.

 

If a singular noun (or proper noun) naturally finishes with the letter "s" then the possessive will take an apostrophe s, e.g. a walrus's tusk or Mrs Jones's dilemma.

 

When a plural ends with a "s" the possessive will take just an apostrophe, e.g. the cars' exhaust fumes.

 

This is usually but probably not always consistent with the pronunciation. When you use 's you will use an extra syllable (-es) in the pronunciation to give the possessive, whereas when it is just the apostrophe there is no pronunciation shift away from the plural word. So my recommendation is that you write what you would do for the pronunciation, which is pretty much the idea with punctuation after all.

 

I always thought the possessive 's was a contraction of the old genitive form 'his'. As they would originally have said "John his house" or "Thomas his book".

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

On the apostrophe topic I think this is the accepted usage.

 

If a singular noun (or proper noun) naturally finishes with the letter "s" then the possessive will take an apostrophe s, e.g. a walrus's tusk or Mrs Jones's dilemma.

 

When a plural ends with a "s" the possessive will take just an apostrophe, e.g. the cars' exhaust fumes.

 

This is usually but probably not always consistent with the pronunciation. When you use 's you will use an extra syllable (-es) in the pronunciation to give the possessive, whereas when it is just the apostrophe there is no pronunciation shift away from the plural word. So my recommendation is that you write what you would do for the pronunciation, which is pretty much the idea with punctuation after all.

Fu......king hell!!!!!

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

Was watching a documentary the other week about life in England in the mid-1400s and there was a turn of medieval phrase that nearly made me wet myself....

 

Apparently, someone slagged off a woman named Margaret Paston and her family, by calling them

 

"strong whores" ( ) and "churls"....

 

 

http://thecuriousfiles.co.uk/15th-century-england/

(googled it for your reference)

...

 

[YoungWillz 21,037]

I'm interested (yes, boring me) in something I was thinking about recently, especially when describing the number of teams that may have had a DDP hit.

 

Now, the online definition of the word 'few' differs, but it is generally described as meaning 'more than two'. However, when I looked up the definition of the word 'several', this was also described as meaning 'more than two' or 'three or more'.

 

All of this contradicts my previous thinking on these words. I'd always thought 'few' meant between four and six, and 'several' meant seven or more - you can probably see where my thinking comes from on this. I don't think I'd ever describe three items as 'several', never mind describing eight or nine items as a 'few'.

 

A Tues muse...

[En Passant 3,741]

I've seen the pedants rattle on about 'fewer' is a specific quantity where 'less' is non-specific. So 4 of something is 2 fewer than 6, not 2 less than 6.

 

But have never really considered 'a few' v 'several'.

 

On the face of it I have no issue with both 3 and 9 being several or a few. Several would run out at about 9 or 10 for me i guess. However I'd view both terms as somewhat relative with 'a few' rather more 'relative' than several.

For example if one said one had 'a few' coat hangers and it was 25 I'd be fine with that, otoh if one said one had 'a few' houses and it turned out to be 25.....

 

But I have no evidence for that, just my view of common usage.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

I think the general rule is, whoever worries about these sort of things have less/fewer than 1 girlfriend and participates in several wanks into their mum's pants drawer every day.

[Toast 16,137]

I'm interested (yes, boring me) in something I was thinking about recently, especially when describing the number of teams that may have had a DDP hit.

 

Now, the online definition of the word 'few' differs, but it is generally described as meaning 'more than two'. However, when I looked up the definition of the word 'several', this was also described as meaning 'more than two' or 'three or more'.

 

All of this contradicts my previous thinking on these words. I'd always thought 'few' meant between four and six, and 'several' meant seven or more - you can probably see where my thinking comes from on this. I don't think I'd ever describe three items as 'several', never mind describing eight or nine items as a 'few'.

 

A Tues muse...

 

I reckon it depends on the context.

 

After a gathering of say nine or ten people, you might say several people had tea and the rest had coffee. That could be three, if you weren't sure how many.

 

A hundred people went to an event. A few (eight or nine) had complimentary tickets.

[Toast 16,137]

I think the general rule is, whoever worries about these sort of things have less/fewer than 1 girlfriend and participates in several wanks into their mum's pants drawer every day.

 

I think you may be right about the girlfriend, and wrong about the mum's lingerie.

[time 8,599]

I'm interested (yes, boring me) in something I was thinking about recently, especially when describing the number of teams that may have had a DDP hit.

 

Now, the online definition of the word 'few' differs, but it is generally described as meaning 'more than two'. However, when I looked up the definition of the word 'several', this was also described as meaning 'more than two' or 'three or more'.

 

All of this contradicts my previous thinking on these words. I'd always thought 'few' meant between four and six, and 'several' meant seven or more - you can probably see where my thinking comes from on this. I don't think I'd ever describe three items as 'several', never mind describing eight or nine items as a 'few'.

 

A Tues muse...

An interesting point.

 

My feeling is that with 'few' it comes down to sample size. (Sample size of, say, a dozen, a few could be any number between 3,4,5 or even six - beyond that you're into 'most' territory. Sample size in the millions, a few could number in the thousands).

Several (to me) just implies an amount greater than one, but less than the whole sample. i.e. 'some'.

 

So generally, none < few <= several <= most < all.

[YoungWillz 21,037]

 

I think the general rule is, whoever worries about these sort of things have less/fewer than 1 girlfriend and participates in several wanks into their mum's pants drawer every day.

 

I think you may be right about the girlfriend, and wrong about the mum's lingerie.

 

 

Lord I've never had a girlfriend or gone near lingerie god forbid!!! All man and blokes, me.

 

Thanks for the responses everyone. Interesting point.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

interesting point.

 

My feeling is that with 'few' it comes down to sample size. (Sample size of, say, a dozen, a few could be any number between 3,4,5 or even six - beyond that you're into 'most' territory. Sample size in the millions, a few could number in the thousands).

Several (to me) just implies an amount greater than one, but less than the whole sample. i.e. 'some'.

 

So generally, none < few <= several <= most < all.

Your point I agree with, my pedant nature woke up from the bolded usage. Statisticians use that word for the size of an actual sample, rather than the population size, i.e. the size of the group from which the sample is taken.

 

Ah, that was good.

 

ETA: where in that unequality does 'many' fit?

Edited March 16, 2016 by Magere Hein
Question added