mine for the last 10years have been rather sucky espically when trying to make friendships where i've lived, and kept in contact with old ones.
but i do believe one birthday i don't know how but my birthday will be off the hook! :eusa-clap:
skftex wrote:I do think the reason I hate it though is that people have started using it in places other than texts.
Oh yes oh yes oh yes. Break the rules with confidence once you have learned what they are. It’s pretty obvious that there is a difference between the stream-of-consciousness last chapter of Ulysses and the endless diarrhoeic spillage of someone unfamiliar with full stops (that’s ‘periods’ to you lot – always makes me laugh). I think it is a bit like the difference between great painters who experiment, having learned their trade, and mediocre ones who break the rules because they are just plain unskilled.skftex wrote:While I do not always speak properly, and sometimes I purposely say things that are not proper, I think knowing how to do it properly is important.
Yep. Another argument I used last Saturday! It’s not as if we all still spoke Chaucerian English. And ‘English’ English, spoken and written, has changed immensely even since the start of last century. Anyone remember RP? US English split off long before those changes.skftex wrote:How do you decide at which time the English was "proper"?
Well, grammar does change but more slowly than speech. And people still do teach slightly differing versions of it. I was actually taught that the Oxford comma was wrong and should be avoided, but I use it sometimes to avoid confusion. And that’s the whole point of grammar. You are right, it should be taught, and prized. You have to have a structure, a beautiful, at its best transparent structure, that orders your thoughts and makes them clear to others. Use the wrong grammar and you are lost – immediately people are paying more attention to the way you said something than to its actual content. Communication fails instantly.skftex wrote:Grammar basically stays the same though don't you think? Other than the argument about the Oxford comma (which I think is necessary but others do not) the basic structure hasn't changed all that much, and should be taught.
Oh, we all have our special bugbears, even free-thinking I/me! Kathy’s ‘y’all’, your ‘seen’ - and I have so many! I absolutely hate (h8? Lol) hearing the media use the past tense ‘wreaked’ (as in havoc). It doesn’t exist, people! The word is ‘wrought’!skftex wrote:And just to add something, to hear someone say "I seen it" just drives me up a wall,so teachers need to teach that seen isn't used without the word have, and they either saw it or have seen it before I have to kill myself the next time I hear it used.
skftex wrote:Oh Kathy, a jumper isn't a jacket it is what we call a sweater I believe.![]()
ThyneAlone wrote:Ooh! Ooh! This is wonderful! Other people that care! Thank you, ladies.
And even in Chaucer's work, depending on the character, they spoke differently didn't they? (I did read part of Canterbury Tales but found it very dull. HAHA) But I seem to remember (maybe incorrectly HAHA) that each one was a different "trade" and didn't seem to speak quite the same way, just as people in different regions sound differently. Or even in the same region, some speak differently because of their education.ThyneAlone wrote:Yep. Another argument I used last Saturday! It’s not as if we all still spoke Chaucerian English. And ‘English’ English, spoken and written, has changed immensely even since the start of last century. Anyone remember RP? US English split off long before those changes.
A lot of people were taught it wasn't necessary but sometimes it is I think. In one of my favorite examples, "Lets eat grandma!" "Lets eat, grandma!" I don't have a grandma to eat but but I probably wouldn't want to if I did.ThyneAlone wrote:Well, grammar does change but more slowly than speech. And people still do teach slightly differing versions of it. I was actually taught that the Oxford comma was wrong and should be avoided, but I use it sometimes to avoid confusion. And that’s the whole point of grammar. You are right, it should be taught, and prized. You have to have a structure, a beautiful, at its best transparent structure, that orders your thoughts and makes them clear to others. Use the wrong grammar and you are lost – immediately people are paying more attention to the way you said something than to its actual content. Communication fails instantly.
ThyneAlone wrote:Oh, we all have our special bugbears, even free-thinking I/me! Kathy’s ‘y’all’, your ‘seen’ - and I have so many! I absolutely hate (h8? Lol) hearing the media use the past tense ‘wreaked’ (as in havoc). It doesn’t exist, people! The word is ‘wrought’!
That's not an Oxford comma, Sharon. Though a very funny and apposite example. An Oxford (otherwise known as serial)comma is the one that precedes 'and' or 'or' at the end of a list.skftex wrote:A lot of people were taught it wasn't necessary but sometimes it is I think. In one of my favorite examples, "Lets eat grandma!" "Lets eat, grandma!" I don't have a grandma to eat but I probably wouldn't want to if I did.