Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    :rolleyes:
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
:rolleyes: Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted
Roll Eyes

Following on from the "fewer/less/up to" debate sparked by Tesco the BBC news magazine has this list of submitted "errors" that annoy people. There are twenty in the list and most of them are the kind of common grumbles and grouses that we hear every day.

The trouble is that by my count at least 14 of the 20 listed are either not errors at all or are, at best differences of opinion about style and unrelated to grammar.

I'll leave it to others to work out which six I think may have a point, though not necessarilly a grammatical one.

Confused


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9423 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of zmježd
posted Hide Post
Incorrect use of reflexives make my blood boil.

How about incorrect subject-verb concordance?

It's like shooting fish in a toilet bowl.

Me thinks these pervy presciptos'll be the end of the language as wot she's known.


Ceci n'est pas un seing.
 
Posts: 5148 | Location: R'lyehReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
in these days of 24-hour days

I love that particular phrase! Smile


Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
 
Posts: 10940 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of jerry thomas
posted Hide Post
Increasing the ambient temperature to 212°F (100°C) literally makes his blood boil.
 
Posts: 6708 | Location: Kehena Beach, Hawaii, U.S.A.Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It's nice that an editor has quoted Fowler debunking some of the "errors".
 
Posts: 2428Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
NOTE: The BBC News website style guide says "due to" means "caused by" and needs a noun, but "owing to" means "because of" and relates to a verb. Hence, "the visit was cancelled [cancelled is the verb] owing to flooding" is correct. So too is "the flooding [flooding is the noun] was due to weeks of heavy rain".


I don't ever recall hearing this distinction in US English. Due to is constantly used, owing to, never.

But there is a parallel phenomenon here. In most cases where "owing to" would be used in the UK, "because of" is used here. Recently, though, I've noticed that it is increasingly common to hear "due to" in constructions in which "because of" used to be universal: The game was called due to rain.
 
Posts: 371Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Valentine:
quote:
"due to" means "caused by" and needs a noun, but "owing to" means "because of" and relates to a verb.


I don't ever recall hearing this distinction in US English. Due to is constantly used, owing to, never.


I don't ever recall hearing it in UK English apart from in places like this where someone is trying to tell me there is a difference. There may be slightly varying levels of formality but both forms are common enough in standard English with either nouns or verbs following.


"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
 
Posts: 9423 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I thought this comment from Fowler's was priceless:
quote:
Fowler's Modern English Usage says that "none" is not short for "not one" and although using a singular verb is more common, using a plural verb has also been an acceptable option since the reign of King Alfred.
Since the reign of King Alfred? Big Grin
 
Posts: 24735 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Wide Wide Words
quote:
People assume that none is a condensed form of no one or not one. As both always take a singular verb, the argument goes, so must none. However, the amateur etymologisers have got it slightly but seriously wrong. Our modern form none comes from the Old English nan. Though this is indeed a contraction of ne an, no one, it was inflected in Old English and had different forms in singular and plural, showing that it was commonly used both ways — King Alfred used it in the plural as far back as the year 888.
 
Posts: 2879 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
There are many Old English examples of none inflected for the plural, for instance
King Ælfred, Boethius de consolatione philosophiæ. XIV, 2
⁊ þa ungesceadƿisan neotena ne ƿilniaþ nanes oðres feos.
"while the irrational cattle are desirous of no other wealth"

But I couldn't find an Old English instance of none as the subject of a plural verb. I found an example from 1300:
South English Legendary: Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury 1182: His limes al-so he bi-heold, hou faire heo weren and freo, Þe hondene faire and longe fingres, fairore ne miȝten none beo.
"He also beheld his limbs, how fair and free they were, the fair hands and long fingers, none could be fairer."
 
Posts: 2428Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    :rolleyes:

Copyright © 2002-12