While I seem to have access to some bits of the site...

I have an old Grammar book called "How to avoid incorrect English".

In the preface it says

"We do not believe in giving exaggerated importance to mere technicalities...
Nor will anybody be branded as illiterate merely for the breach of some minor rules which are insisted upon only by strict grammarians."

So with that in mind, here are some examples of sentences that section one of the book finds fault with. Which, if any do you find objectionable? And why?

Please stop aggravating me.

I will leave as soon as ever I can.

He was refused entrance, but persisted, however, in his attempts to get in.

On a conservative estimate, we should make ten per cent.

The balance of the year will be devoted to building ships.

I cannot come due to the serious trouble that has overtaken me.

We do not know this individual.

We shall see our mutual friend.

It's quite all right.

It's four years ago since we talked about it.

That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class.

Here are the ones I recognize. I don't think any of these prescriptions make any grammatical or historical sense btw.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Please stop aggravating me.

"Aggravate" should mean "make worse", not "annoy"

quote:

I cannot come due to the serious trouble that has overtaken me.

"due to" should not be a preposition meaning "because of"

quote:

We shall see our mutual friend.

redundant

quote:

It's four years ago since we talked about it.

Probably something about using "since" after the present perfect.

quote:

That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class.

Avoid passive!

quote:

"Aggravate" should mean "make worse", not "annoy"

Well, my dear Torontonian friend, I would humbly disagree with you, as does the OED. Here is their seventh definition of aggravate, which sounds a lot like "annoy" to me:

quote:

7. To exasperate, incense, embitter (a person); famil. to provoke, arouse the evil feelings of.
1611 COTGR., Aggravanter, to aggravate, exasperate. 1634 T. HERBERT Trav. 93 This aggra[va]ted the Persian king exceedingly to be so bearded. 1748 RICHARDSON Clarissa (1811) I. 345 If both were to aggravate her parents, as my brother and sister do mine. 1858 THACKERAY Virgin. xvii. 134 Threats only served to aggravate people in such cases.

The following would irritate (do I dare say "aggravate"? ) my prescriptivist colleagues:

#3 Do not use the passive voice...and get rid of that preposition at the end of the sentence!
#4 It's percent and not per cent (even though the dictionaries clearly say either way is fine).
#6 There's that pesky passive voice again!
#9 Use alright, for heaven's sake!
#10 "It has been four years (delete the ago) since we talked about it"...and quit using the passive voice!

I would think there might be a situation where "our mutual friend" might not be redundant, but I can't think of it.

quote:

We shall see our mutual friend.

I'm sure their objection -- Dickens notwithstanding -- is that it should be common friend, as mutual involves reciprocity.

I don't think any of the constructions are all that bad; some are possibly a little pompous but that's hardly a grammatical fault.

So far as mutual (or common) friends are concerned, it would be quite possible to have friends that are not mutual so I don't see that the adjective is redundant. Of course, were one to say, "We will be seeing our friends X and Y" then the recipient of the message would usually know whether of not they were friends you had in common, without being reminded of the fact. So in that sense the adjective is unecessary.

Bob describes the grammar book as "old". How old, I wonder? "That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class." seems to refer to TV, and although the mention of "working class" seems to imply a British author, the spelling of "program" points to an American. The 1950s or 1960s, perhaps?

Few if any of the prescriptions would raise an eyebrow nowadays, and most would appear in good (descriptive) dictionaries.

As to the prescriptions themselves, the only logic I can see for some is possible redundancy, but that's not always a bad thing as it can lend emphasis.

I did adapt a couple into slightly more modern versions, arnie. I'm not sure of when the book was first published as it has no imprint date. I'll try to use the internet to find out.

And I can say that some of the "faults" identified above are NOT the ones the authors complain about.

Assuming I can still get in to this thread, I'll give their answers at the weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

"Aggravate" should mean "make worse", not "annoy"

Well, my dear Torontonian friend, I would humbly disagree with you, as does the OED. Here is their seventh definition of aggravate, which sounds a lot like "annoy" to me:

I would disagree with me as well. As I said, I don't think any of the prescriptions that I listed are justified. However, many usage writers think that "aggravate" should not mean "annoy".

Neveu is right... the complaint about "mutual friend" isn't about redundancy. According to MWDEU, some usage writers complain that "mutual" must include the notion of reciprocity. "Our mutual friend" should be instead "our common friend". (I disagree; if it's good enough for Dickens...)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

From my investigations it appears that the original copyright may be 1927. The worrying thing is that it appears to be in print now with an edition dated 2008, mainly on sale in India as far as I can tell.

The version of English used in India is very much the same as that used during the era of the British Raj (which ended in 1947).

quote:

It's four years ago since we talked about it.

Probably "It's been four years since we talked..." I think "ago" is superfluous.

Redundancy in language is a feature, not a bug, especially when speaking. Pleonasm, RAS syndrome, tautology, periphrasis, etc., all have their uses, especially if the communication channel is noisy, the audience distracted, or the meaning under discussion difficult.

quote:

Redundancy in language is a feature, not a bug, especially when speaking.

These are written examples with supposed errors, not speech.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
These are written examples with supposed errors, not speech.

There are at least 2 redundancies in this sentence. Plurality is marked 3 times: with these, are, and the s of examples.

These are written examples with supposed errors, not speech.

If we're gonna discuss register (link) then I suppose we oughta determine who the supposed consumer of the written text is. We would have to read the book that Bob Hale is referring us to. But my gut tells me that the soi disant grammarian is talking about all English, written and spoken. (Go ahead, prove me wrong with references to the relevant text.) As goofy pointed out, just a bit above this posting, language, spoken, written, and otherwise, has lots of redundancy built into it. It's just some types of redundancy that pushes the few over the grammatical edge. It's a slippery slope. Either something is grammatical or it ain't. Otherwise, we're gabbing 'bout style. Not grammar. But, style.

I can get behind register. If I oughtn't to use ain't in my résumé cuz some PHB (link) might not hire me, that's OK. I understand whence they come, and whither they go, just like I understand taxes and the protection racket. But (and I must emphasize that but) that does not make some construction ungrammatical. It just makes it politically incorrect to use it in certain situations. (Surely, something that we all understand, i.e., changing how we produce linguistic texts to satisfy some person's totally arbitrary desire to control us.)

[Corrected solecism.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

When I post the answers, I'll point you at the relevant text on-line.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Proofreader:
These are written examples with supposed errors, not speech.


There are at least 2 redundancies in this sentence. Plurality is marked 3 times: with these, are, and the s of examples.

I should have been more explicit. I meant the errors were contained in a written -- not oral or spoken -- text (Bob's book) with the stipulation that some error existed within that framework. I probably should have excised the "redundant" portion of the quote since it had no relevance to my comment.

I fail to see any redundancies in the sentence Goofy quoted. "Written example with supposed errors, not speech" doesn't work for me. The missing words were necessary for comprehension.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
I fail to see any redundancies in the sentence Goofy quoted. "Written example with supposed errors, not speech" doesn't work for me. The missing words were necessary for comprehension.

Marking plurality 3 times is redundant because marking it once should be enough, in theory. Redundancy is a built-in mechanism to help language penetrate the surrounding noise.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

And here, in their own words, are the things the authors didn’t like.

Please stop aggravating me.
(“Aggravate” means: to make something worse. It is used in colloquial English to mean: to annoy, exasperate, etc., but it’s use in that sense should, of course, be avoided in writing.)

I will leave as soon as ever I can.
(“as ever”: vulgarism)

He was refused entrance, but persisted, however, in his attempts to get in.
(Pleonasm. “But” and “however” mean the same thing.)

On a conservative estimate, we should make ten per cent.
(“Conservative” should not be used in this sense; its proper meaning is “disposed to maintain the existing conditions.”

The balance of the year will be devoted to building ships.
(W can speak of the balance of an account (a difference between two amounts of money) but not the balance of a period.)

I cannot come due to the serious trouble that has overtaken me.
(“Due” is an adjective and must refer to noun or a pronoun, e.g. “The rent is due.” On the other hand we must say: “He succeeded owing to his application”, using the compound preposition, “owing to” to introduce the adverb-phrase qualifying “succeeded”.)

We do not know this individual.
(An “individual” is a private person as opposed to a group or body. The wrong use of “individual is very common. Use “person”, “man”, “woman”, etc.)

We shall see our mutual friend.
(If Smith is a friend of Robinson, and of Brown, he is the common friend of those two. To say that he is their mutual friend is to imply that there is a reciprocal relationship between Brown and Robinson; but these two might be enemies. In any case, if they are not, we Are not thinking about the relationship between them but their separate relationship with Brown

And if you can untangle that explanation, you’re better than I am.)

It's quite all right.
(Colloquial pleonasm. Omit “quite”.)

It's four years ago since we talked about it.
(“Since” used with “ago” is a faulty repetition of the same idea.)

That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class.
( a) “Mostly”, which refers to the “working class” is misplaced. It should be “is watched mostly by”
b) “Mainly” or “chiefly” are often more elegant than the colloquial “mostly”.

Definitely not giving any exaggerated importance to mere technicalities, then

quote:

(“Aggravate” means: to make something worse. It is used in colloquial English to mean: to annoy, exasperate, etc., but it’s use in that sense should, of course, be avoided in writing.)

Not according to the OED, as cited above.

As I said, the book seems to originally date from the 1920s but is still in print and still in use in the far east. For what it's worth I don't actually agree with any of their perceived faults.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
We do not know this individual.
(An “individual” is a private person as opposed to a group or body. The wrong use of “individual is very common. Use “person”, “man”, “woman”, etc.)

This isn't very clear. According to MWDEU, the real usage dispute is that "individual" should only be used when it is contrasted with a larger unit or stresses some special quality. When "individual" means "person" and shows no special contrast, it is wrong. For the past 50 years, almost all uses of "individual" in edited prose follow this rule.

The rule might originate in etymology: from Latin indīviduus "indivisible".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

I hadn't heard that about individual. I like using it now and then. I've seen it used in my line of work where we might say, "The individual should report to the Board every three months." Somehow "person" in that context just doesn't sound right.

I can't honestly say that I have a problem with any of them, because I understood them all perfectly and knew what they were trying to get across. Some are a little clumsy, I suppose ("as ever" and "ago since"), and would naturally be avoided in writing, but it's the sort of thing that would happen in speech all the time.

The only thing I might say, if looking for an excuse to point something out, is that "individual" in no.7 sounds ever so slightly close to the unnecessary drivel used by, say, to pick a group totally at random, politicians. But, even then, it's peanuts compared to some of the other stuff they've come out with in the past.

That isn't to say, however, that I can't see what problems anyone could have with them. There are indeed some who would select several faults with all of them!

Bob, I agree. For me, most, if not all of these are technically fine, but I certainly would express some of them differently, because some of them feel awkward to me. Just guessing what the book might have to say:

1. aggravating --They want you to ts you to say "bothering" or "pestering" instead.

2. I will leave as soon as ever I can.
In the UK, is that "ever" considered the sort of thing the working class would say?

3. He was refused entrance, but persisted, however, in his attempts to get in.
I would drop the "however."

4. On a conservative estimate, we should make ten per cent.
Can't think what the complaint is here.

5. The balance of the year will be devoted to building ships.
Passive voice?

6. I cannot come due to the serious trouble that has overtaken me.
Do they say it needs a comma after "come" or that "due to" should be "because of?"

7. We do not know this individual.
"Individual" is an adjective and therefore cannot be used as the direct object of this sentence. Now, it just sounds bureaucratic, but certainly not incorrect. I think "individual" to mean "person's" been accepted just about all my life, i.e., a very long time.

8. We shall see our mutual friend.
????

9. It's quite all right.
This seems quite all right to me.

10. It's four years ago since we talked about it.
Book probably says "It has been," on the grounds that "It's" is not a proper contraction for "it has been." Still--I think this one, too, is quite all right.

11. That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class.

Must be a passive voice "problem." Miss Thistlebottom would eschew it. Miss Beck, my Miss Thistlebottom, also.

Wordmatic

Gee--that'll teach me to read only halfway through a thread before replying. I should have read just two more messages to see my guesses were now redundant! Well, at least now I can check my work.

Edit after reading the answers: I'm lost with their explanation on "individual" as well. Also, the explanation on the use of "due to." And on #10, I didn't even see the word "ago," which shows how the mind tends to correct what it is reading. On that one, I would agree that the "ago" is unnecessary with the "since."

As for the accounting complaint on #5, that was actually my first guess, and then I thought, no, it has to be the passive voice thing. It's funny, your book never even mentions passive voice as a problem in this list.

I would definitely flunk a course based on this book.

WM

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordmatic,

Well to add my own commentary.



Please stop aggravating me.
(“Aggravate” means: to make something worse. It is used in colloquial English to mean: to annoy, exasperate, etc., but it’s use in that sense should, of course, be avoided in writing.)

There is nothing wrong with this. Aggravate meaning annoy is perfectly acceptable according to every dictionary I have consulted. Just because it isn't listed as the first meaning doesn't mean it's wrong.

I will leave as soon as ever I can.
(“as ever”: vulgarism)

Perhaps not the most elegant idiom, but an idiom nevertheless. The ever is serving as an intensifier for the as soon as

He was refused entrance, but persisted, however, in his attempts to get in.
(Pleonasm. “But” and “however” mean the same thing.)

I don't think the but and the however do have the same meaning in this sentence. I think that the however, in this usage is more akinto nevertheless.

On a conservative estimate, we should make ten per cent.
(“Conservative” should not be used in this sense; its proper meaning is “disposed to maintain the existing conditions.”

This may well have been true in the 1920s. It isn't true now. Conservative to mean moderate is probably the more common modern usage.

The balance of the year will be devoted to building ships.
(W can speak of the balance of an account (a difference between two amounts of money) but not the balance of a period.)

Even if the assertion was correct when the book was written (which I doubt) this is a straightforward extension of the meaning.

I cannot come due to the serious trouble that has overtaken me.
(“Due” is an adjective and must refer to noun or a pronoun, e.g. “The rent is due.” On the other hand we must say: “He succeeded owing to his application”, using the compound preposition, “owing to” to introduce the adverb-phrase qualifying “succeeded”.)

This is just nonsense.

We do not know this individual.
(An “individual” is a private person as opposed to a group or body. The wrong use of “individual is very common. Use “person”, “man”, “woman”, etc

As is this. .)


We shall see our mutual friend.
(If Smith is a friend of Robinson, and of Brown, he is the common friend of those two. To say that he is their mutual friend is to imply that there is a reciprocal relationship between Brown and Robinson; but these two might be enemies. In any case, if they are not, we Are not thinking about the relationship between them but their separate relationship with Brown

And if you can untangle that explanation, you’re better than I am.)

I can't comment. I don't understand the "explanation".

It's quite all right.
(Colloquial pleonasm. Omit “quite”.)

I am at a loss to see how this even qualifies as pleonasm.

It's four years ago since we talked about it.
(“Since” used with “ago” is a faulty repetition of the same idea.)

Probably the only one that actually rings false to me. I wouldn't use since with ago. On the other hand I do hear it from time to time. The fact that I notice it proves that I don't like it.

That kind of program is mostly watched by the working class.
( a) “Mostly”, which refers to the “working class” is misplaced. It should be “is watched mostly by”
b) “Mainly” or “chiefly” are often more elegant than the colloquial “mostly”.

Adverbial placement can be tricky but I don't see that there is any potential ambiguity here. The placement might just cause confusion for the merest fraction of a second. But it can't possibly be attached to watched as that would imply that while the working classes mostly watch programs, they sometimes do something else with them. This is plainly a ridiculous interpretation.

In short. There is possibly something very slightly wrong with one of them, and nothing whatsoever wrong with the others. That's my opinion anyway. YMMV

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
We shall see our mutual friend.
(If Smith is a friend of Robinson, and of Brown, he is the common friend of those two. To say that he is their mutual friend is to imply that there is a reciprocal relationship between Brown and Robinson; but these two might be enemies. In any case, if they are not, we Are not thinking about the relationship between them but their separate relationship with Brown

And if you can untangle that explanation, you’re better than I am.)

I can't comment. I don't understand the "explanation".

I think the complaint is that mutual "should" imply a notion of reciprocity. This means that to say "our mutual friend" is to say that you and the person you are speaking to have a reciprocal relationship. Our mutual animosity means "our animosity for each other", therefore our mutual friend means "our friend, and our friendship for each other". Or something.

hmm... you're right, it doesn't make much sense. MDWEU traces the complaint to Johnson's dictionary. Apparently he gave the "reciprocal" definition for mutual but left out the "common" definition.

quote:

Conservative to mean moderate is probably the more common modern usage.

I'd go more to "cautious" estimate for that word.