"Grammar Police" why ?

Aberaeron said:

What really bothers me is the use of "on a regular basis", is the redundancy of the word 'lend'; it being replaced by 'loan' in every context. Do people not realise that 'lend' or 'borrow' is what they do and that the 'loan' is the product or 'thing'?

Click to expand...

.. to mean regularly. First, one word is almost invariably better than four. Second, I've never been able to find a way of reconciling basis - a foundation - and the frequency (regular or otherwise) of an occurrence.

The fact that this silly thread continues, testifies to how much we need Canon, Nikon, & others to bring new cameras & lenses to the market so we can talk about something worth while. To Cane ; I hope it is not because of age, I'll be 60 this year, that kind of a future is not appealing. P.S. I'm sure someone will inform me of any mistakes in this post . Peace.

Well, in that case I surmise it depends entirely on how your brain works, so there's individual variance. For me it's the other way around, I concentrate on the words and if I read a complete sentence or a complete phrase, nothing coming after it can change that. If I paused in the manner you suggested, it would be to wonder if I had to change my already certain assesment of the previous sentence being complete, so a different order entirely. I can't even think of an example or if that happens, but to make it a little clearer: if I read "come ,on inside he.. /said", my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary."

canonagain123 said:

Well, in that case I surmise it depends entirely on how your brain works, so there's individual variance. For me it's the other way around, I concentrate on the words and if I read a complete sentence or a complete phrase, nothing coming after it can change that. If I paused in the manner you suggested, it would be to wonder if I had to change my already certain assesment of the previous sentence being complete, so a different order entirely. I can't even think of an example or if that happens, but to make it a little clearer: if I read "come ,on inside he.. /said", my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary."

Click to expand...

If I encountered "come on inside he said" I'd read it smoothly and probably (it would need a bit of context to be sure) construe it as "come on inside, he said". And that would be it unless something later cast doubt on that construction.

If I encountered "come ,on inside he.. /said" the first thing I'd notice would be the irregularities in punctuation. I'd pause to remove the punctuation mentally, which would get me to the starting point of the preceding paragraph. That pause is the slowing caused by the irregularities.

If you are saying that odd punctuation is something you simply don't notice - in other words, you actually perceive only the words and not the punctuation - then what is the purpose of the punctuation you put in your own writing? And if you do perceive it, how can that perception followed by removal of the errant punctuation be done in zero time.

Or, to put it another way, if the errant punctuation doesn't slow you down would you go through all this: my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary" in no time at all?

Mike CH said:

canonagain123 said:

Learn something new every day. I didn't know it had crept in [SIC] a dictionary. I suppose by that standard it's now correct then.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that it hasn't been correct for quite a while - see also http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52901563

Click to expand...

Actually, "crept in a dictionary" is exactly what I wanted to say. There's no ambiguity.

Mike CH said:

Mike CH said:

Of course they do, and I have nothing against that. In fact, I embrace it. The kind of computers that you mentioned have seized [SIC] to exist (for everyone except perhaps some very wealthy old magnates that still keep them around for nostalgic reasons. I predict both the last computer in a skirt and the last employer of one will need the services of a grave digger very soon, should they still exist.) Therefore it stands to reason that the word was given a new meaning to better suit the changed times where the old meaning was irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, "seized". Honestly, I don't know how that happened. You're right, no matter how careful you are, sometimes you just mess it up.

Mike CH said:

It was not given a new meaning, it took on a new meaning by being used differently. Do not mistake that, particularly in English as a descriptive language, this is the way new meanings come about.

Click to expand...

Right again. I used the wrong expression because I wasn't paying attention or giving much conscious thought to the mechanics of words changing their meaning over time.

Mike CH said:

Mike CH said:

Not so with the act of lending and borrowing, both of which have remained the same for all of mankind's history.

Click to expand...

Those two have, yes. But has loan?

Mike CH said:

There's no need to replace the word 'lend' and I agree that it is a sign of the kind of development that will likely end in "I have to car to work now but I promise I will grocery as soon as I off-work and then I will home right away. We'll dinner nicely and movie on TV. While I'm working, please remember to cat-food the cat. Bye."

Click to expand...

Well, you can find silly examples for most things, if you look long enough. And you can construct even sillier examples, if you put your mind to it

Btw, the [SIC] s above are not meant to annoy, but only to point out that no matter how careful you are, other meanings and usages are bound to creep in. Heavens know, my texts are full of similar things, too.

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

Click to expand...

I guess I understand your point. Things are bound to change around, when enough people stop paying attention and start favoring another way to express things, then left becomes right and right becomes wrong (sometimes quite literally - like how "bad" came to mean "good") Honestly, I don't like to be overly pedantic about language either, but I have an appreciation for proper language in certain contexts. If you txt me u can rite liek dis n i dun mind, but there are contexts where I would find that kind of writing inappropriate. In a context where proper language is expected, I value the ability to produce flawless, eloquent English. I don't see internet forums as something where proper language is in any way necessary, so my attitude is more lax and mistakes like above are bound to happen even though I'm aiming to write properly. In a context where it's really necessary, I have a different mindset so mistakes like that don't happen.

Member said:

Actually, "crept in a dictionary" is exactly what I wanted to say. There's no ambiguity.

Click to expand...

No ambiguity, certainly. I accept that that's what you intended to say. But what I think you really meant was "crept into a dictionary". The only things I know that creep in dictionaries are bookworms.

Gerry Winterbourne said:

canonagain123 said:

Actually, "crept in a dictionary" is exactly what I wanted to say. There's no ambiguity.

Click to expand...

No ambiguity, certainly. I accept that that's what you intended to say. But what I think you really meant was "crept in*to* a dictionary". The only things I know that creep in dictionaries are bookworms.

Click to expand...

Yessss

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

Spelling and grammar in language equals addition and subtraction in arithmetic. You have to get the details right to produce the correct result. Cheers

Gerry Winterbourne said:

canonagain123 said:

Well, in that case I surmise it depends entirely on how your brain works, so there's individual variance. For me it's the other way around, I concentrate on the words and if I read a complete sentence or a complete phrase, nothing coming after it can change that. If I paused in the manner you suggested, it would be to wonder if I had to change my already certain assesment of the previous sentence being complete, so a different order entirely. I can't even think of an example or if that happens, but to make it a little clearer: if I read "come ,on inside he.. /said", my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary."

Click to expand...

If I encountered "come on inside he said" I'd read it smoothly and probably (it would need a bit of context to be sure) construe it as "come on inside, he said". And that would be it unless something later cast doubt on that construction.

If I encountered "come ,on inside he.. /said" the first thing I'd notice would be the irregularities in punctuation. I'd pause to remove the punctuation mentally, which would get me to the starting point of the preceding paragraph. That pause is the slowing caused by the irregularities.

If you are saying that odd punctuation is something you simply don't notice - in other words, you actually perceive only the words and not the punctuation - then what is the purpose of the punctuation you put in your own writing? And if you do perceive it, how can that perception followed by removal of the errant punctuation be done in zero time.

Or, to put it another way, if the errant punctuation doesn't slow you down would you go through all this: my thoughts would go something like this. "Come on inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly "Come on! Inside!", he said. No, it's definitely the first one. Oh, I notice there's some extra punctuation there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary" in no time at all?

--
---
Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
[email protected]

Click to expand...

I simplified it a little bit, but it actually gets quite complicated. If that was written by someone else, my thoughts in complete order would go like this (some things in parentheses are to describe or explain). "my thoughts would go something like this. complete sentence. understand the meaning of the sentence. expected next: thoughts. encountered a quote, make a mental note and skim ahead. several sentences without an ending quote, keep on reading. Comeone inside. He said. Come on inside, he said or possibly (pause: repetition: variation of the same. Check for irregularities/differences. activate attention to punctuation) Difference: "Come on inside" vs "Come on (exclamation) inside (exclamation) difference: tone in the latter more agitated, apprehensive, or possibly just louder. Keep reading. Oh, there's some extra punctuation there (at this point I'd skim back to the "come inside..\, " or remember there was extra punctuation (I would have made a mental note of its existence even if I ignored it completely as a factor in the meaning) at this point I would have the whole paragraph with its meaning clear in my head. I'd read the last bit "there, but no matter, none of it seems to be necessary" and note that it was exactly the thought I already deduced the whole idea/paragraph would have ended in (call it presumptuous reading, if you will. It actually makes reading a LOT faster, since most of the time I'm right and I have a pretty good feeling when I can just stop reading because no new unexpected information follows.) Mental note: uneven number of quotes and some quotes missing, automatically corrected.

Enjoy the trip to inside my head? When I compose a text, it goes in a completely different way, there's almost no similarity to how I read. Did this get complicated enough yet?

Sure, that's what I mean, but they're both correct. Consider "its use has crept in a sentence". Crept into is probably more common, but crept in feels just as natural for me. I don't know, maybe it's an idiosyncracy of mine.

Aberaeron said:

Spelling and grammar rules were developed so that people could unite in a common usage.

Click to expand...

That's more or less true of the earliest dictionaries. But published guides to grammar were designed not so much to unite language as to impose the writers' individual opinions (which didn't always coincide) on a newly literate but unconfident population. They had a depressingly large amount in common with the grammar police that started this thread.

Aberaeron said:

Of course language develops but development based on careless and mistaken use is different to development through the introduction of new words. I have illustrated one such poor use of words and there is no excuse that can justify it in my opinion. It is done purely from the position of the poor literacy of the user, who, and considering their employment, should know and do better. I'm talking about 'loan' 'lend' and 'borrow'.

Click to expand...

I can't find any definitive source that has "loan" and "lend" not meaning the same when used as verbs. Both are, of course, the opposite of "borrow".

We just run out of red pencils.

Having been one (a copy editor, not a pencil) for three decades, I can flatly state that everybody needs a good editor. First, people have different abilities. I'm a great editor but don't ask me to balance my checkbook! For many here, English is their second language. And many people face problems such as dyslexia.

Second, nobody including me is the best editor of their own writing. Your brain can be tricked into seeing what it knows should be there, not what is. That's why the screaming, sweat-inducing nightmare of every editor is waking up to see the headline: Mayor gets pubic service award.

So what's the big deal about an extra space or a comma instead of a period? 99.99% of the time, nothing at all. Like the writer, our brains know what should be there.

But, when I see repeated typos, misspellings, etc. I start to wonder: If the writer/publication, website, whatever, is so sloppy about simple things, how can I trust them to have the important details correct? In other words, if there are all this grammar mistakes I SEE because that's my field, are there mistakes I DON'T see regarding the subject (lens qualities, camera care, learning how to shoot backlit subjects, or whatever) because I am just beginning to learn about the topic?

Plus, sometimes mistakes can actually change the meaning of a sentence.

Eats Shoots and Leaves......or.......Eats, Shoots, and Leaves

Gallopingphotog

P.S. I've reread this three times but I wouldn't be surprised if someone finds an unintentional goof!

"on a regular basis". At least, when you want to be witty or snarky (is there really a difference?)

-On what basis are you accusing me? "Regular."

That's definitely true, it's really nasty when people ignore the message and comment on the grammar, that's just immature.

In what way is their age relevant? And why do you insist that only 'old' people correct other people's grammar? Are all linguists and professors of the various languages around the planet old?

canonagain123 said:

Actually, "crept in a dictionary" is exactly what I wanted to say. There's no ambiguity.

Click to expand...

Are you really, really sure about that?

Member said:

I guess I understand your point. Things are bound to change around, when enough people stop paying attention and start favoring another way to express things, then left becomes right and right becomes wrong (sometimes quite literally - like how "bad" came to mean "good") Honestly, I don't like to be overly pedantic about language either, but I have an appreciation for proper language in certain contexts. If you txt me u can rite liek dis n i dun mind, but there are contexts where I would find that kind of writing inappropriate. In a context where proper language is expected, I value the ability to produce flawless, eloquent English. I don't see internet forums as something where proper language is in any way necessary, so my attitude is more lax and mistakes like above are bound to happen even though I'm aiming to write properly. In a context where it's really necessary, I have a different mindset so mistakes like that don't happen.

Click to expand...

Oh, I very much appreciate 'proper' writing, too. I do - mostly - pay attention to what I am writing, so that the result is not too horrible. But I am very wary of stifling language with too tight a corset; I have far too much respect for the sheer beauty of language dynamics through the ages for that.

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

canonagain123 said:

Sure, that's what I mean, but they're both correct. Consider "its use has crept in a sentence". Crept into is probably more common, but crept in feels just as natural for me. I don't know, maybe it's an idiosyncracy of mine.

Click to expand...

Lots of variation, huh?

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

It'll be bombs that'll bring us together.

I do concede that I was sloppy in my editing . No one has pointed out any errors in my last post, I assume I'm improving ( man am I asking for trouble ). Considering the entertainment provided, not the worst thing I done.

John

Dept. of Waste Management

Okay, okay, I get your point.

And yes, I'm sure. It's my preposition! And it's definitely in