[Lucky123]

I've made these mistakes a few times myself but I have learned to slim my grammar errors down a bit, but they do happen sometimes by accident.

[Advertisements]

Or throw this grammar out ut winder, an' if tha comes ta live i' Lancashire, yer gotta speak propper like what us dus.

[Plastic Nev]

Or throw this grammar out ut winder, an' if tha comes ta live i' Lancashire, yer gotta speak propper like what us dus.

[eles]

Just a few unrelated observances -

 

I'm surprised that, in eight years, no one brought up the nonexistant word reoccur.

 

Aside from geography, there are now two English languages - spoken and written.

Spoken English has been infiltrating the written version for many years. People

now believe that it is correct to write documents in spoken English. The spoken

version is now entrenched in the newer versions of the Merriam Webster New

Collegiate Dictionary. I use a 1956 version.

 

Anyone who thinks that spellcheck can take the place of proofing a document is

only proving to the world that they do not understand.

 

(Correctly, the word is recur)

Edited by Eles, 04 August 2015 - 07:23 PM.

[RubiksHQ]

I'm surprised that, in eight years, no one brought up the nonexistant word reoccur.

Really?

http://grammarist.co.../recur-reoccur/

[TooNew2]

Just a few unrelated observances -

 

I'm surprised that, in eight years, no one brought up the nonexistant word reoccur.

 

Aside from geography, there are now two English languages - spoken and written.

Spoken English has been infiltrating the written version for many years. People

now believe that it is correct to write documents in spoken English. The spoken

version is now entrenched in the newer versions of the Merriam Webster New

Collegiate Dictionary. I use a 1956 version.

 

Anyone who thinks that spellcheck can take the place of proofing a document is

only proving to the world that they do not understand.

 

(Correctly, the word is recur)

 

It is easy to pick up these bad habits when they're so prevalent.   Here's another case of non-agreement:

 

"Anyone [singular] who thinks that spellcheck can take the place of proofing a document is

only proving to the world that they [plural] do not understand".

 

Yes, the situation is that both the written and spoken language can vary from very formal and correct, to essentially illiterate, depending on the author. When the latter form is used in legal documents (or anywhere else of consequence), how can the meaning be correctly evaluated? That's why standards exist. I once heard an interesting talk by Sen. S. I. Hayakawa on the subject of Semantics and also about the need for one uniform language in America, that being English.

 

It seems to me that many of the older, less commonly used words are being forgotten; although some still-used words have similar meaning, the others had different emphasis  or implications so could convey subtly different meanings.  What is worse is when words are badly misused or grammatical rules are ignored by those who write books, publish newspapers, disseminate ads on the radio or TV, and thus have a bad influence on the general, unaware population. 

 

The first might be compared to copying a painting of a sunset using only four or five basic colors instead of all the shades in the original. The latter would be arbitrarily adding blotches of black, purple or green which obliterated important features, making the picture "modern art" rather than a recognizable copy of the original.

 

 

Anyway,...lately I've heard a number of examples on the radio of "creative English", to give more credit than due: 

 

"A truck stalled out on the off-ramp at..."   or   "I changed out the starter but..."

No, the truck just stalled, and you changed the starter. Nothing "out" about it.

 

"There's an accident working at..."

 

No, an accident occurred and the only ones working are the officials at the scene.

 

"The crash was cleared to the right."

This is short-tongue for: 'Following a collision, the vehicles were moved out of the driving lanes; thus the road was cleared'. Which proves that one only needs a third grade education to be a traffic 'reporter' (or maybe it's the 7'th grade in today's schools?)

 

"Because of repair work, the right lane is taken away...."

Oh? who took it and where was it taken? Another case of a news-reader being 'cute', perhaps because he gets bored giving the same traffic information all day? "Please, just the facts, sir", preferably in plain, good English.

 

"Is your computer running slow?"

Mine is not running slowly, and if it were, I surely wouldn't trust it to you to fix!

 

"For your Tuesday, expect the temperature to be warmer"

If it's mine, why do I have to share it with everyone else? That either sets a bad precedent for all else which is mine, or is really just  meaningless 'touchy feely' psychobabble. Instead of citing modern political goals, I'll attribute this to the latter.

Edited by TooNew2, 05 August 2015 - 12:13 AM.

[azarl]

Just a few unrelated observances -

 

I'm surprised that, in eight years, no one brought up the nonexistant word reoccur.

 

Aside from geography, there are now two English languages - spoken and written.

Spoken English has been infiltrating the written version for many years. People

now believe that it is correct to write documents in spoken English. The spoken

version is now entrenched in the newer versions of the Merriam Webster New

Collegiate Dictionary. I use a 1956 version.

 

Anyone who thinks that spellcheck can take the place of proofing a document is

only proving to the world that they do not understand.

 

(Correctly, the word is recur)

 

Sorry, no it's not Recur means to turn back or have recourse.

 

From the OED (The definitive source of English)

 

reoˈccur, v.

[re- 5 a.]

intr. To occur again.

   1867 Atwater Logic 203 Whenever it is applied in such measure to these several subjects, they will re-occur.    1884 McCosh in Homilet. Monthly (1885) Jan. 232 In the first chapter of Genesis such passages as this occur and re-occur.

 

 

[eles]

No offense intended to you, Azarl or to the King's English. In the US, I have seen reoccur in dictionaries less than 50 years old. I wonder, what is the copyright date on the dictionary you use?

Referring to the link in the RubiksHQ post, most of the repliers on http://grammarist.co.../recur-reoccur/believe that reoccur is not a valid word. The following are from that link.

"You can't double prefix a word stem. re is a Latin prefix and so is oc. The c in oc assimilates with the c in cur (the word stem). Hence recur and occur. Reoccur does not work."

"Reoccur is not a legitimate word. Things OCcur and REcur; they don't reOccur. I see that the last-named has arrived in the dictionary because of the commonness of the error, but its still wrong."

"It's like the word ain't. Just because people say it doesn't make it right."

Again, I believe that reoccur is now found in newer dictionaries because of its commonness. It's the 'dumbing down' of the English Language.

Edited by Eles, 05 August 2015 - 06:34 PM.

[azarl]

No offense intended to you, Azarl or to the King's English. In the US, I have seen reoccur in dictionaries less than 50 years old. I wonder, what is the copyright date on the dictionary you use?

Referring to the link in the RubiksHQ post, most of the repliers on http://grammarist.co.../recur-reoccur/believe that reoccur is not a valid word. The following are from that link.

"You can't double prefix a word stem. re is a Latin prefix and so is oc. The c in oc assimilates with the c in cur (the word stem). Hence recur and occur. Reoccur does not work."

"Reoccur is not a legitimate word. Things OCcur and REcur; they don't reOccur. I see that the last-named has arrived in the dictionary because of the commonness of the error, but its still wrong."

"It's like the word ain't. Just because people say it doesn't make it right."

Again, I believe that reoccur is now found in newer dictionaries because of its commonness. It's the 'dumbing down' of the English Language.

 

The word originates from 1867, by Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater in his Manual of Elementary Logic: Designed Especially for the Use of Teachers and Learners - so I don't think it a 'newer' word. It was first used about 66 years before the phrase 'dumbing down' (invented in the USA by H.T. Webster), so logically the phrase does not apply.

[DonnaB]

The word originates from 1867, by Lyman Hotchkiss Atwater in his Manual of Elementary Logic: Designed Especially for the Use of Teachers and Learners - so I don't think it a 'newer' word. It was first used about 66 years before the phrase 'dumbing down' (invented in the USA by H.T. Webster), so logically the phrase does not apply.

Well. If you really want to get technical, the word originates from the Latin word occurrere and dates back to 1520-30.

See here under Origin of occur and Related forms further down.

[azarl]

[eles]

Thanx DonnaB

I'm not a lexicologist. I lived my whole life in the math, science & engineering world.
Can you shed some light on the origin of recur for me?
Is there, in fact, a difference between recur and reoccur.
Are there times when one would be more appropriate over the other?

The following came fron the site you referenced for occur. It appears that this application of recur dates to the mid 1400s.

Word Origin and History for recur
v.
late 14c., "recover from illness or suffering;"
mid-15c., "to return" (to a place), from Latin recurrere "to return, run back, hasten back," figuratively "revert, recur," from re- "back, again" (see re- ) + currere "to run" (see current (adj.)). Originally of persons; application to thoughts, ideas, etc. is recorded from 1620s.
Meaning "happen again" is from 1670s. Related: Recurred ; recurring.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

 

I just found this:

 

Most English speakers are familiar with 'occur' etc., so when they need a word for the
same thing happening more than once, they just follow standard (linguistic) English
custom and put 're' in front of occur etc.

Latin isn't taught much in schools today, so 're' in front of 'cur' ;-) isn't really an option
that could occur to most people.

 

And then from me:
What about recursive and reoccursive???

Edited by Eles, 11 August 2015 - 12:25 PM.

[Atomicwoman]

Its and it's

Its - this is a possessive, again. "The mouse is running in its wheel". "Its wheel is spinning rapidly".

It's - yet another contraction, this time of it is. "It is going to rain" becomes "It's going to rain". "I wonder if it's warm in Hawaii". If you can use "it is" in the sentence, then it's appropriate to use "it's".

English is not my first language, so I think that such misleading occure because users of forums are busy enough so they are in a hurry constantly  and that`s why they miss the ' . 

[Angoid]

Automatic correction has a part to play as well.  For example, in British English we have the following two words:

Advice - Noun.  Example use: "Can you give me some advice please?" or "Why not take this advice?"

Advise - Verb.  Example use: "Can you advise me please?" or "You have been advised."

 

I often find that auto-correct tries to replace "advice" with "advise" and it really annoys me!

 

The same is true of Licence/License, where it's spelled with an 'c', it's a noun.  The 's' version is a verb:

I have a driving licence.

The store has an off-licence (a licence to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises)

I am licensed to drive.

The store is licensed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises.

 

Another one is prophecy/prophesy; here the word is even pronounced differently, but same rule applies: "Prophecy" is a noun and "Prophesy" is a verb.

[EmishOrc]

 

 

*admin couldn't resist!

...and no, I didn't make any of those errors up, they were all there.  

 

Worse than that what about this:

 

"ur cheekae goin nawth ratha the sowth har har! That is what admins/mods can't resist. It's infuriating!

[Angoid]

Eey up mi duc!
Now THAT's a Northern greeting for ya

OK, what really really REALLY grates is the incorrect use of double negatives. Firstly it is a grammatical error and secondly, they cancel each other out and make a positive anyway:
"I haven't got no matches" - well, if you HAVEN'T got NO matches, then you must have some, yes?

This is not the same as the linguistic device of litotes, where you emphasise something in terms of it not being its negative.
Example:
"London is no small city"

While at it - what's the point in telling forum software where you are if it doesn't extend to UK/US spelling differences? The word "emphasise" is being flagged because I don't spell it with a "z".

Grrrrrrrrr