The English Language

[time 8,575]

Year 6 pupils will shortly be taking a National Test in grammar, punctuation and spelling.

 

See how you do!

 

Anyone achieving 100% correct can award themselves the (virtual) honez Memorial Trophy.

[Toast 16,063]

[smug]Me! I got 100%. [/smug]

I wasn't 100% confident about all my answers though, so a couple of lucky guesses in there.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

Well i had a look.......then decided to go and make a cup of tea.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

I got 11 out of 14, mostly by guesswork.

 

I'm thick as shit, me.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

I got 11 out of 14, mostly by guesswork.

 

I'm thick as shit, me.

Why the fuck did you think I went to make a cup of tea!!!!!!

[Rotten Ali 600]

9 out of 14. That was hard.

Due in main to my poor late 70's / early 80's strike-hit secondary education that got me 2 scant minor grade CSE's in English.

 

Well done Toast. Impressed.

[Paul Bearer 6,093]

Not telling. At least I know about Polar bears though. :-)

[themaninblack 2,112]

I got 10. My english is better than my maths...

[Handrejka 1,903]

[smug]Me! I got 100%. [/smug]

I wasn't 100% confident about all my answers though, so a couple of lucky guesses in there.

 

Same here.

[Bibliogryphon 9,509]

Didn't know whether to post this here, or in football thread, but the BBC website are running a story about how Michael Chopra (Ipswich Town player/Gambling addicted career car crash) has had to quit Twitter after posting a picture of a large amount of cash and making light of his gambling debts.

 

However one of his colleagues posted a tweet which the BBC repeated verbatim "Michael Chopra your a clown".

 

When I saw this all I could think about was the fact that is was grammatically wrong. Does this say more about me or about the level of tweets which circulate between "professional" footballers?

 

There are those that say, it does not matter if posts on Twitter are not accurate, but I am a believer that that is the start of a slippery slope.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

[smug]Me! I got 100%. [/smug]

I wasn't 100% confident about all my answers though, so a couple of lucky guesses in there.

 

Same here.

I can honestly say that I would not have expected less than full marks from you Handy.

You is well clevah!!

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218]

Didn't know whether to post this here, or in football thread, but the BBC website are running a story about how Michael Chopra (Ipswich Town player/Gambling addicted career car crash) has had to quit Twitter after posting a picture of a large amount of cash and making light of his gambling debts.

 

However one of his colleagues posted a tweet which the BBC repeated verbatim "Michael Chopra your a clown".

 

When I saw this all I could think about was the fact that is was grammatically wrong. Does this say more about me or about the level of tweets which circulate between "professional" footballers?

 

There are those that say, it does not matter if posts on Twitter are not accurate, but I am a believer that that is the start of a slippery slope.

We have been on the slippery slope for well over a decade now.

American spellings, text speak, slang, you name it, anything goes.

If you try to read test from hundreds of years ago, you would struggle, spellings and grammar have evolved and it will continue to do so. It may not be a good thing but shit happens.

Anyway, you will be in good company on here, the grammar Police patrol regularly.

[thefunkyfaz 51]

13/14. Not bad, but my late, great English teacher from my Colchester Royal Grammar School days would be disappointed at my failure to identify a prepositional phrase correctly. At least I know my gerunds...

[time 8,575]

In the spirit of openness, I confess to a not-overly-impressive 10/14.

 

In my defence, we never had formal grammar lessons at my (comprehensive) school - and it was a long time ago now.

[YoungWillz 20,919]

The slippery slope or the brave new world? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32902170

 

If you tolerate this, your children will be....oops, too late!

[Toast 16,063]

I don't remember if I've complained here before about this, but it really riles me. A half-sibling being described as a step sibling. There's a big difference, and an important one.

 

If I mention this, some ignoramus usually pipes up and says, "Yes, but it can be used to mean either."

 

Well, just because it can, that doesn't mean it should. It's yet another example of the richness of the English language, and its capacity for expressing a precise meaning, being eroded by ignorant fools.

[Magere Hein 1,399]

I don't remember if I've complained here before about this, but it really riles me. A half-sibling being described as a step sibling. There's a big difference, and an important one.

 

If I mention this, some ignoramus usually pipes up and says, "Yes, but it can be used to mean either."

 

Well, just because it can, that doesn't mean it should. It's yet another example of the richness of the English language, and its capacity for expressing a precise meaning, being eroded by ignorant fools.

 

Indeed. While I suppose two people can be half-siblings and stepsiblings at the same time, the words express two quite different concepts.

 

While we're on the subject: Dutch has no word for sibling. The concept is expressed as "broer of zus". Similarly, Dutch isn't particularly good at expressing family relations beyond first cousin ("neef" or "nicht", Dutch has different words for male and female cousins). Fine gradations like third cousin twice removed cannot be expressed in Dutch, such relations are folded in the words "achterneef" or "achternicht". To complicate matters, the words "neef" and "nicht" are also used for nephew and niece.

 

Finally a question: my grandmother was born from her father's second marriage, who remarried after becoming a widower. From the first marriage she had a few half-siblings. Her father died when she was 10 or so, and her mother remarried and had children with her second husband as well, also half-siblings of my granny. The children of her father's first marriage and of her mother's second weren't half-siblings. Dutch has no word to express such a relation. Does English?

[YoungWillz 20,919]

 

I don't remember if I've complained here before about this, but it really riles me. A half-sibling being described as a step sibling. There's a big difference, and an important one.

 

If I mention this, some ignoramus usually pipes up and says, "Yes, but it can be used to mean either."

 

Well, just because it can, that doesn't mean it should. It's yet another example of the richness of the English language, and its capacity for expressing a precise meaning, being eroded by ignorant fools.

 

Indeed. While I suppose two people can be half-siblings and stepsiblings at the same time, the words express two quite different concepts.

 

While we're on the subject: Dutch has no word for sibling. The concept is expressed as "broer of zus". Similarly, Dutch isn't particularly good at expressing family relations beyond first cousin ("neef" or "nicht", Dutch has different words for male and female cousins). Fine gradations like third cousin twice removed cannot be expressed in Dutch, such relations are folded in the words "achterneef" or "achternicht". To complicate matters, the words "neef" and "nicht" are also used for nephew and niece.

 

Finally a question: my grandmother was born from her father's second marriage, who remarried after becoming a widower. From the first marriage she had a few half-siblings. Her father died when she was 10 or so, and her mother remarried and had children with her second husband as well, also half-siblings of my granny. The children of her father's first marriage and of her mother's second weren't half-siblings. Dutch has no word to express such a relation. Does English?

 

If I follow you correctly (and as a former lawyer, I have experience of decoding instructions!) - not as far as I am aware. The children of father's first and mother's second are not related by blood or marriage in any way (the mother's remarriage reclassifying said mother as a former stepparent) and as such would have been free to inter-marry if they so desired. Legally they are no relation, though they would be free to describe themselves for familial purposes on an informal basis howsoever they choose.

[Dr. Zorders 1,271]

 

 

I don't remember if I've complained here before about this, but it really riles me. A half-sibling being described as a step sibling. There's a big difference, and an important one.

 

If I mention this, some ignoramus usually pipes up and says, "Yes, but it can be used to mean either."

 

Well, just because it can, that doesn't mean it should. It's yet another example of the richness of the English language, and its capacity for expressing a precise meaning, being eroded by ignorant fools.

 

Indeed. While I suppose two people can be half-siblings and stepsiblings at the same time, the words express two quite different concepts.

 

While we're on the subject: Dutch has no word for sibling. The concept is expressed as "broer of zus". Similarly, Dutch isn't particularly good at expressing family relations beyond first cousin ("neef" or "nicht", Dutch has different words for male and female cousins). Fine gradations like third cousin twice removed cannot be expressed in Dutch, such relations are folded in the words "achterneef" or "achternicht". To complicate matters, the words "neef" and "nicht" are also used for nephew and niece.

 

Finally a question: my grandmother was born from her father's second marriage, who remarried after becoming a widower. From the first marriage she had a few half-siblings. Her father died when she was 10 or so, and her mother remarried and had children with her second husband as well, also half-siblings of my granny. The children of her father's first marriage and of her mother's second weren't half-siblings. Dutch has no word to express such a relation. Does English?

 

If I follow you correctly (and as a former lawyer, I have experience of decoding instructions!) - not as far as I am aware. The children of father's first and mother's second are not related by blood or marriage in any way (the mother's remarriage reclassifying said mother as a former stepparent) and as such would have been free to inter-marry if they so desired. Legally they are no relation, though they would be free to describe themselves for familial purposes on an informal basis howsoever they choose.

 

Whoah.......... jeez. *chill passes across the forum*

 

That explains why you can afford to be on here at early hours of the morning then.

Do you need a new limo driver or golf caddy? (gizzajob!)

[YoungWillz 20,919]

^^ Former, Dr Z, I gave that all up to become a carer for my brother (phew, what a drop in income that was!). Now I'm looking for work after he passed away.

 

Understand the chill, I'm no fan of the profession any more.

[Dr_T 254]

My mother was adopted by Iris and Wally. Wally died when Mum was quite young and Iris remarried. They had 2 children, a boy and a girl. My mum refuses steadfastly to acknowledge that she is their half-sister. Whenever asked, she says she is their step-sister. I think she gets confused by the fact she is adopted but that makes no difference. I use the Brady Bunch to illustrate my point. Mike had 3 boys (Greg, Peter and Bobby) and Carol had 3 girls (Marcia, Jan and Cindy). If Mike and Carol were to adopt a child from Africa (Mbobo) then Mbobo would be a half brother to all of the children while the other boys would be the girls' step-brothers and the girls would be the boys' stepsisters.

 

I also have a friend whose parents have been married a number of times, and whose various partners have also been married more than once. She has this colourful array of half/step/siblings. I have told her that she doesn't have a family tree, she has a family hedge. Once I visited her and she said Ï've done a really stupid thing...I had sex last night with my sister's brother". It was her half-sister's half brother and they have no common parent. They never lived together and have little common history so it really isn't as icky as it might sound. Still might make Christmas a little complicated.

[Lard Bazaar 3,799]

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.

[Paul Bearer 6,093]

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.

The apostrophe question is a good one. I don't rightly know the answer. If you want to go straight on through a 4 'exit' roundabout, you can use both lanes, but I would suggest you use the left lane all the way round. (Apologies to our European members as you lot drive on the wrong side of the road)

[time 8,575]

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.

[Cat O'Falk 3,290]

 

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.