Bob Chapman
Established Member
‘One of the only’ gets my goat.
Gotten
- Thread starter selectortone
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
What annoys me most in a bar or shop is can I get instead of can I have. It was bad enough the youngsters using it i now hear the older generation using it
French.What annoys me most in a bar or shop is can I get instead of can I have. It was bad enough the youngsters using it i now hear the older generation using it
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
One I heard on the BBC years ago - it's nearly almost exactly one o'clock.
Yojevol
Clocking on
Any adjective in front of 'unique' is superfluous
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
My neighbour's ten year old told me that anything in a sentence that comes after "but" doesn't matter.
Cabinetman
Established Member
And American.
Cabinetman
Established Member
Epicentre, it’s always the Epicentre on the BBC, and of course it actually means the place on the surface above where an Earthquake has occurred, so quite specific, and not as they always use it to just mean the centre or middle of anything. Grrrr.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
When I was working in professional life, rather than just doing what I want as I do now, it was imperative to use correct English, grammar, punctuation and be brief. As I got more senior and started running businesses it was apparent that new graduates had simply not been educated in the same way. They did not write well. The text generation pushed that envelope to extremes and now we communicate with these things 
It used to irritate me, but now I am relaxed about it and just observe the change in how humans communicate, oblivious to the way AI is encroaching on their time and creativity.
Good writers and storytellers still prevail. The systemic decline simply makes identifying the skilled ones easier.
It used to irritate me, but now I am relaxed about it and just observe the change in how humans communicate, oblivious to the way AI is encroaching on their time and creativity.
Good writers and storytellers still prevail. The systemic decline simply makes identifying the skilled ones easier.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I try, usually successfully, not to let any of it upset me. Why raise your blood pressure over anything so trivial?
Buy some IKEA furniture grammar and spelling are superfluous it's all drawings even down to an arrow to show which way the screws turn 
When I had a job, a colleague and I calculated that on average we each proof-read/ assessed approx. 1.5 million words per year. That's apart from our own reading and writing. I think it's fair to say that I still obsess over language, tho it's a combination of pleasure and pain. But I'm coming round to the idea that so long as it communicates well enough, best let it go. Chill. Etc.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Errors of spelling or syntax don't bother me too much unless they quite obviously alter the meaning of what is written.
I get irritated at the mixing up of compliment and complement - that often does alter the meaning.
I get irritated at the mixing up of compliment and complement - that often does alter the meaning.
You know it's bad when people pronounce "nice" biscuits as "nice" biscuits.
Everyone knows it should be "nice" not "nice." What is wrong with people?
Everyone knows it should be "nice" not "nice." What is wrong with people?
No in French the correct way to ask for something is "can I get" incorrect is "have" as in "I have" "you have" not "can I have" its not correct in American either.
The answer to whether you can have it is not necessarily very helpful. But, the same applies for get. It should be may I get not can I get unless you are Yoda and want a can. (I'm guilty of saying can I get reasonably often in practice).
Yorkieguy
Established Member
According to numerous sources, she's out of step and fails to understand the nuances with which 'got' and 'gotten' are used.
Quote:
Although both gotten, get verb transitive are accepted past participles for most senses of the verb get, gotten has become the prevailing form in the U.S. in all speech and writing, especially for the senses of receiving, becoming, or arriving; the gradual acceptance of gotten over the past 40 years or so has probably been facilitated by the desire to distinguish between possession, as in the informal I've got a car, and acquisition, as in I've gotten a car; these forms are not commonly used in most other English-speaking countries, where the standard form for possession is have (I have a car) and the standard past participle is get verb transitive (for instance, in Britain, I have got a car means I have acquired a car).
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
Unquote.
And:
North America:
"Gotten" is the preferred past participle of the verb "get" in the United States and Canada. It's often used to emphasize the process of receiving or gaining something, such as "I've gotten a lot of support from my friends". Possession: 'I've got a car'. Acquisition: 'I've gotten a car' means 'I've recently acquired one'.
The word "gotten" was once more common in English, including in the works of Shakespeare and political philosopher Hobbes. However, it fell out of fashion in England by the late 18th century. In the United States it was never completely lost, and experienced a revival in the late 19th century.
- Outside of North America
"Got" is the preferred past participle of "get" in English-speaking countries outside of the U.S. and Canada. In British English, "gotten" is rarely used, especially in formal writing.
For those inclined, there's 27-page paper which highlights the seven categories of usage:
1. Acquisition
2. Change of state
3. Causation
4. Understanding
5. Possession
6. Obligation
7. Idiomatic
https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8955576&fileOId=8955577
Yorkieguy
Established Member
A word that clings on from the 1700s in Scotland, in criminal law, but not in England, is 'proven', or rather 'not proven'.
As a past participle, proven is the accepted form in Scotland and (according to Google!), the preferred form throughout North America.
Proved tends to be the word of choice in England.
In Criminal Courts in England and Wales, if someone is accused of a crime, there are only two verdicts: 'Guilty' and 'Not Guilty. To be found guilty, the case has to be proved to the criminal standard of 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. (Not, as is often incorrectly stated in crime dramas 'beyond all reasonable doubt'). If there is a doubt it has to be exercised in the defendant's favour. However, in Scottish criminal law, there is a third verdict of 'Not Proven', (which means the defendant is found to be innocent, just as a not guilty verdict, so is acquitted). 'Not proven' rather suggests that 'we think he did it, but we can't quite prove it'. That seems almost a level of proof in English civil law where the burden of proof is 'on the balance of probabilities, it's more likely than not that the case is proved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven
Yorkieguy
Established Member
With its astounding rise in popularity since 2001, text messaging has been widely deplored as the ruin of teens, of the English language - even civilisation itself. The reality is far less dire.
Some years ago I attended a lecture entitled ‘Texting - the Gr8 Db8’ by Prof Emeritus David Crystal, the UKs foremost linguist at large, based on his book of the same title. He's a wonderfully entertaining speaker who has written over 100 books on the English language. He exploded the myth that kids are becoming illiterate through using text-speak – indeed, research has shown the opposite is so.
Prof Crystal asserts that there's no evidence that texting damages writing skills; on the contrary, academic studies - as well as creative phenomena such as text poetry - indicate that texters can actually be talented writers. In any case, texting isn't as innovative as we might think: abbreviations are hardly new, and a highly text-associated word like "wot" dates from 1829. There are many others: 'cos for because, ASAP and B4 was widely used B4 texting came into being, and Latin abbreviations have been widely used (and often deplored) for a very long time - EG, NB, etc.
‘Txtng: The Gr8 Db8’ is a 2008 book about text messaging, by linguist Emeritus Professor David Crystal.
The title is a ‘logogram’ which stands for Texting: The Great Debate. In his book, Crystal examines the use of text messaging and its effect on language and literacy. Based on research and experimental results, he disagrees with the popular view that the use of abbreviations and slang, such as those in SMS language will lead to low literacy and bad spelling among children.
Main points:
Crystal put forward the following points in his book:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dav...ate=ive&vld=cid:cb8ec078,vid:h79V_qUp91M,st:0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txtng:_the_Gr8_Db8
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Txtng-Gr8-.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
When I see my 23-yr old twin granddaughters using their smartphones, it isn't so much their ability to text, as the lightning speed and dexterity with which they do it. They can check train times and book and pay for a ticket quicker than I can fumble about with the app. Likewise, pay for a parking space with an app in seconds, while I stand in a queue at the machine. If we're out for a meal I have to be on my best behaviour with my table manners or I soon get put in my place with a well-intentioned whisper in my ear: 'No devices at the table granddad', 'elbows', 'we don't talk while we're eating'.
Some interesting stats here about texting:
https://shso.vermont.gov/sites/ghsp/files/documents/Worldwide Texting Statistics.pdf
Some years ago I attended a lecture entitled ‘Texting - the Gr8 Db8’ by Prof Emeritus David Crystal, the UKs foremost linguist at large, based on his book of the same title. He's a wonderfully entertaining speaker who has written over 100 books on the English language. He exploded the myth that kids are becoming illiterate through using text-speak – indeed, research has shown the opposite is so.
Prof Crystal asserts that there's no evidence that texting damages writing skills; on the contrary, academic studies - as well as creative phenomena such as text poetry - indicate that texters can actually be talented writers. In any case, texting isn't as innovative as we might think: abbreviations are hardly new, and a highly text-associated word like "wot" dates from 1829. There are many others: 'cos for because, ASAP and B4 was widely used B4 texting came into being, and Latin abbreviations have been widely used (and often deplored) for a very long time - EG, NB, etc.
‘Txtng: The Gr8 Db8’ is a 2008 book about text messaging, by linguist Emeritus Professor David Crystal.
The title is a ‘logogram’ which stands for Texting: The Great Debate. In his book, Crystal examines the use of text messaging and its effect on language and literacy. Based on research and experimental results, he disagrees with the popular view that the use of abbreviations and slang, such as those in SMS language will lead to low literacy and bad spelling among children.
Main points:
Crystal put forward the following points in his book:
- Typically, less than 10% of the words are abbreviated in text messages.
- Abbreviating is not a new language; instead, it has been present for many decades.
- Children and adults both use SMS language, the latter being more likely to do so.
- Students do not habitually use abbreviations in their homework or examinations.
- Sending text messages is not a cause of bad spelling because people need to know how to spell before they can send a text message.
- Sending text messages improves people's literacy, as it provides more opportunity for people to engage with their language through reading and writing. The last point seems to be especially useful for school-age children.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Dav...ate=ive&vld=cid:cb8ec078,vid:h79V_qUp91M,st:0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txtng:_the_Gr8_Db8
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Txtng-Gr8-.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
When I see my 23-yr old twin granddaughters using their smartphones, it isn't so much their ability to text, as the lightning speed and dexterity with which they do it. They can check train times and book and pay for a ticket quicker than I can fumble about with the app. Likewise, pay for a parking space with an app in seconds, while I stand in a queue at the machine. If we're out for a meal I have to be on my best behaviour with my table manners or I soon get put in my place with a well-intentioned whisper in my ear: 'No devices at the table granddad', 'elbows', 'we don't talk while we're eating'.
Some interesting stats here about texting:
https://shso.vermont.gov/sites/ghsp/files/documents/Worldwide Texting Statistics.pdf
