h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think it's a trend that is simply based on poor understanding of grammar; I don't think it's meant to act as any form of statement. Personally, I find it quite confusing when I find misused 's's and apostrophes, and I wish that people would look back on those grammar lessons they had in infant school!

Hmm.

I think maybe it's from misspelled era names (i.e. '60's instead of '60s). Or maybe from misspelled initials (ABC's instead of ABCs).

Sometimes it seems as though writers (I here abuse the term!) intentionally reverse them.

--Cooper

I hate it.()

In my case, it is just that I am terrible with my grammer. Also those lessons at primary school bored the hell out of me. It is probably due to not listening to those lessons that my English teacher keeps having a go at me over my essays and how he finds them hard to understand. Strange when my other english teacher can understand them, it is not as if I change styles for the two of them.

if a person always spels korektly, punktuates apropriatly and claims that the plural of forum is fora, it makes me think they are stufy.

stufy ppl r great at perpetuating the existent and obeying orders but horrrrrrrrible at progres.

what makes these rules so sakred anyway????

didn't they jez evolve from usage?

I think many other people have made the point that obeying the rules enhances clarity and aids communication: a key function of language (OK, Emily, not the only function). If you've ever tried to read Feersum Endjinn (Iain M Banks), you will know how difficult it is to read something that deliberately breaks the rules. Ironically, it can be very effective in a a short poem, but too much in a novel.

The Latin plural of forum _is_ fora, but the English plural is either forums or fora. Just like the plural of index may be either indexes or indices and medium may be mediums or media. There are definitely times when over-pendantic plurals can be annoying and there are times when they're just plain wrong. I particularly like 'omnibi' as the plural of 'omnibus'. This completely ignores the fact that 'omnibus' is the dative plural of 'omnis' (all) and the correct English plural is 'omnibuses'. Now, what do people think about 'data'? Singular or plural verb?

On the subject of split infinitives, I have always regarded them as ugly. The sentence can almost always be re-written, likewise prepositions at the end of a sentence. I tend to agree with the original edition of Fowler 'The split infinitive is an ugly thing, as will be seen from our examples below; but it is one among several hundred ugly things, and the novice should not allow it to occupy his mind exclusively.'

Someone asked about the gerund. Generally the same in form as a participle in -ing. It is a noun whereas the participle is an adjective. For all practical purposes, that is all you need to know! Everyone gets confused by these and it isn't helped by usage, which allows some blurring. The clearest example I've ever seen is from Fowler: "That end will be secured by the Commission sitting in Paris." If the meaning is to clarify which Commission (i.e. the one sitting in Paris), then this is an adjective and, therefore, a participle. If the meaning is to explain that the choice of Paris rather than somewhere else will cause the end to be achieved, then this is a noun: a gerund. If the sentence were written with 'Commission's', it would be clearer, since it could only be the gerund (and more grammatically correct, but that's usage for you).

OK, no one asked about the gerund. I think I was reading two conversations on similar topics! I hope you're all edified, anyway.

What I didn't really say in the previous post, but meant to, was that clarity of expression can generally be achieved by following 'the rules' and it can make your writing easier to read. This applies as much to the internet as any other medium.

On the subject of Americanisms, my least favourite is the omission of prepositions and the over-explanation of place names. Both usually seen in TV news, but also in USA Today. I saw some Sky News recently (won't let it in the house, myself: I was staying in a hotel) and they seem to suffer from the same malaise: "The General Election will be in June, Prime Minister Blair said yesterday, London, England." That should be "... said yesterday in London." Addition of preposition 'in' and omission of 'England'.

OK, OK. That should be 'least favourites are', before anyone corrects me.

Is there some universally recognized guide to correct English grammar and spelling that I was previously unaware of? If so, then why do I have so many rival publications on these subjects cluttering my bookshelves?

The impression I get from many people's views on this topic is that if only they'd rigidly stuck to some notional literary code then the likes of Shakespeare and Joyce might have made a name for themselves.

Data = plural. Datum is the singular, isn't it?

As for Shakespeare, he was writing before the advent of standardised spelling in the 18-19th centuries, but his work still sticks to certain rules of the time - the informal "thee" formation and the formal "you"; the verse-form speech for characters of distinguished rank; sonnet verse for for love speeches (eg. between Romeo and Juliet - "If I profane with my unworthiest hand" - iambic pentameter). Similarly Joyce. Spelling is continually evolving, I grant that, as is syntax and other areas of grammar, but it's nothing new. In Jane Austen's work, "show" is spelt "shew" - ditto Oscar Wilde. Again "spelt" and spelled", "all right" and alright" - some would cringe at my contraction of "alright". In the appendix to the Penguin edition of "1984", it comments how George Orwell felt uneasy with the increasing use of contracted phrases. My dad sometimes teaches medical students, and they often don't know the difference between "may be" and "maybe". Similarly "effect" and "affect". In these cases the argument that communication is of prime importance falls over itself rather, since if one uses incorrect spellings or word formations, the meaning of the sentence is changed entirely.

In Hokkien (the dialect of Chinese that I speak), we don't have to worry about these problems - if something's in the past, just put "liao" on the end -

eg. "bor ai kee orr-dung" - I don't want to go to school

becomes

"bor ai kee-liao orr-dung" - I didn't want to go to school

Oh, and you put "la" on the end of everything ( "bigensiau-la!" - "Shame on you!") just because you do.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, whilst English has many irregular spelling constructions, its grammar is relatively simple. Most people who speak English as a foreign language use grammar admirably, and yet in the words of Prof. Henry Higgins:

"Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?..."

Because we're lazy. There are so many variations of English now that our children spend most of their time watchin American and Australian soaps, now I'm not blaming these but it can make life very difficult for parents when this is what they compete with.

Mel

P.S Mycroft, if you write a short into on your page (it can be just hello!) an ace like me will welcome you officially to the site!

Much of this has already been discussed.

The crux of the misuse of the language in modern media is that technology is way ahead. We have dozens of forms of communication and not much to say.

This was foreseen in the Flanders and Swann song "High Fidelity" - about a man with a very modern stereo (for those days) and all about "wow" and "flutter" - but he had no idea about music!

F & S also had a field day with plurals in "Mud, mud" - remember:

"A regular army of hippopotami"?

Who needs punctuation when you have smileys

All my favourites coming out now. Thank you, Emily, for pointing out 'affect' and 'effect'. Similarly, 'insure' and 'ensure'.

On the subject of 'data'. Strictly, 'datum' is the singular and 'data' the plural. However, this is one word that is in such common usage that evolution has speeded up. I suspect that most people would accept 'data' as a singular noun (after all, agenda and insignia are really Latin plurals). Fairly soon, it will seem unduly pedantic to pair it with a plural verb. Should we mourn, should we object, should we resist? I don't think so. This is how language develops and, as long as clarity is preserved, who are we to object?

Right on, Manolan. In such ways does language evolve to reflect usage... but usage is something we have to more or less ALL agree on. If we all decide to make personal, random changes to the language, we cannot communicate. We'd end up speaking different languages altogether.

It's also worth noting that this is an international site, and everyone has different local dialects that show to some degree here. Add "creative" grammar and spelling, and it would be a miracle if we managed to understand each other at all.

feel free to criticise me, but i hardly ever capitalise my "i"s on the internet, cos it's so much quicker. and i write "cos" instead of "because", and often "probly" instead of "probably". when you contract words, it's less easy to mistypw them (oops, there's an example of a typo). i know a lot of it is laziness, but i don't see what's wrong with that. language evolves, it has changed so much in 50 years, let alone 100 or more. so people change how they write. as for writing formal documents, letters or articles and things, of course i would use capitals and write everything fully, but for conversations on the internet, i don't honestly think it matters. but i don't agree with peoplesaying things just to look "cool" like "woteva" or just "wot". but that's just a little pet hate.
^. .^
= ' =

manolan's put it in a nutshell. Makes me feel superfluous again.

I agree entirely. It's difficult to walk the fine line between insisting people stick to the rules and bending to take in something that is stronger than all of us, and does have a certain degree of logic to it.

The new rules for the spelling of German (which are to be in full force by 2006) are to a great extent illogical and to scholars of the classics quite ridiculous. No consideration is given to the roots of a word, and all foreign words are now allowed to be spelt phonetically (from the German point of view). To my mind, if they were going to reform the language then they should look into the 21st century and drop ä, ü, ö and ß and the use of capitals for nouns, not just silly spelling changes which no one can understand and which have no logical explanation. This reform does not reflect in any way the progress of the language or incorporate any changes in spelling which have crept in until they became common, accepted use.

No one has been able to produce an answer to the question as to who is responsible for the definitive rules of English spelling and grammar. A girl called Ben got quite near in another forum somewhere near here, but then you get statements like "if a word is used a lot it is eventually included in the dictionary".

Who measures how often a word is used? How many people have to use it for it to become "common usage"? Ditto spelling of words.

What's to stop people inventing words and just putting them into circulation? (Even easier now we can e-mail half the world's online population at the click of a mouse)

And harder still: who decides when a word no longer needs to be included? There might still be people who have this word in their active vocabulary, but they just don't happen to converse with people from Collins or the OED or wherever.

The same questions and uncertainties can be extended to grammar.

Statistics: From what I remember at school, it was more of an art than a science. (Mind you, statistics was on a Monday afternoon, in a sunny upstairs room, just after lunch, taken by the most boring maths teacher ever to walk this earth, and I usually slept in the lessons)

The Mighty Clelba - I'll acknowledge that language evolves, has to evolve, but purely to ndulge laziness is something that I can't accomodate. As manolan said, we'd all end up speaking different languages. It's all in neo-Darwinian theory... The thing is, TMC, that a lot of people no longer come into situations in which they are required to write formally - conversations on the internet being the only circumstances in which they do write things down, and as it is with dancing, cooking or speaking French, misuse leads to forgetfulness. People will actually lose the ability to write correctly at all.

Lazy writing has been going on for millennia, as have arguments about it and yet we live in a time when more people can and do write than ever before. Romans were too lazy to chisel stuff out in full half the time and so ended up abbreviating everything, which is why British pound coins have D.G.REG.F.D. stamped on them. Is this down to slack-jawed, work-shy engravers or part of Britain's rich literary heritage?

When exactly was this golden age of formal writing anyway? Was it during the Georgian era when almost no-one had a dictionary or grammar to hand, the Victorian era when countless ugly neologisms and abbreviations were coined by lazy type-setters, or during the 20th Century when telegrams were devoid of grammar and punctuation, swiftly to be followed by telephones which made letters all but redundant?

Emily I think I may be proof of the fact that misuse frequently leads to inability to write and punctuate correctly.

i honestly don't think there's going to be a problem with people "forgetting" how to write properly. a large amount of the illiteracy in the world has nothing to do with the internet or text messaging. and also, there's a big difference between typing and handwriting.
^. .^
= ' =