Gotten

[selectortone]

Whilst discussion of such may be of academic interest, they may simply serve to feed the egos of those who arrogantly believe their learning evidences superiority.

For goodness sake - it was just an attempt to add some humour to a forum that is all doom and gloom and bitterness and rancour nowadays. A light-hearted *** at our American cousins. The bit at the end about the semicolon was meant to be a clue. Sorry you don't get my sense of humour. Not intended to show arrogance or ego and certainly not superiority.

Good lord, what have you got to do to get a laugh these days?

 

[guineafowl21]

I like David Mitchell’s take on apostrophes (paraphrased):

“I spent time learning how to use apostrophes. Now I’m told they don’t matter, because the people who didn’t learn them have won. I want that time back!”

 

[John Brown]

I am unconcerned that I don't know how to use an apostrophe correctly. Pedants agonise and create artificial ambiguous examples - eg: "eats, shoots and leaves" (put the apostrophe(s) wherever you want). Context and syntax generally solves the problem.

Unlike poetry where words and phrases may stir emotions, language is principally about communication. Conveying meaning in a way the recipient understands and can react appropriately.

Latin is an archaic preserve of close to zero relevance today. Split infinitives, words in common usage in the 19th century or earlier etc have no place in modern communication.

Far from improving the quality of dialogue they act as barriers to understanding. Whilst discussion of such may be of academic interest, they may simply serve to feed the egos of those who arrogantly believe their learning evidences superiority.

Eats shoots and leaves(eats roots and leaves, when I first heard the underlying joke from an Australian I used to work with), is more about commas, isn't it?

 

[JimJay]

I am unconcerned that I don't know how to use an apostrophe correctly. Pedants agonise and create artificial ambiguous examples - eg: "eats, shoots and leaves" (put the apostrophe(s) wherever you want). Context and syntax generally solves the problem.

Unlike poetry where words and phrases may stir emotions, language is principally about communication. Conveying meaning in a way the recipient understands and can react appropriately.

Latin is an archaic preserve of close to zero relevance today. Split infinitives, words in common usage in the 19th century or earlier etc have no place in modern communication.

Far from improving the quality of dialogue they act as barriers to understanding. Whilst discussion of such may be of academic interest, they may simply serve to feed the egos of those who arrogantly believe their learning evidences superiority.

The problem with linguistic laxity is that there are people who take advantage of it to mislead or cheat others; in addition, a cavalier attitude to punctuation is often associated with the use of incorrect vocabulary. The whole point of language is to enable us to communicate in a way which conveys information accurately and efficiently, hence the rules of grammar to ensure that we can uniformly structure that information in an agreed way. Using words we don't understand correctly is simply increasing the noise while interfering with the signal. Likewise, the rules of punctuation are there to ensure that our meaning is precise: it's not "pedantry" to wish to impart knowledge efficiently, but it IS ridiculous to expect other people to guess what you mean because you won't, or can't, express yourself clearly. You might as well say that everyone understands your intention and context when you get behind the wheel of a car, so why bother to learn the rules that govern safe driving or submit to unnecessary rules like obeying speed limits, buying insurance, servicing your vehicle, getting an MOT and other such superfluous pedantry?

An insistence that the rules don't apply to ME is dangerous and foolish in many contexts, including driving and communicating with other people.

 

[velar]

My tuppence with the benefit of an Oxford first in English and 25 years as a professional writer and editor (and a certain amount of joy that after a quarter of a century I can cite it): FWIW, probably sweet FA, communication is the point and the best thing about English is how and how much it changes. People often worry about correctness and very seldom consider fun.

I wrote a whole essay in undergraduate finals about words like "gamahuching" and had a very enjoyable exploration of notions of the obscene in doing so; that word isn't used any more, which is a shame as it's a lot of fun to say, but only because of that am I able to gain so much joy from discovering it. English has more words than any other language, many times the amount you can use in French or German, at least partly because rather than trying to safeguard and ossify itself like French does, it happily steals language from elsewhere and moves on, with a je ne sais quoi that makes it fun to play with.

Any prejudice against neologisms like "gotten" (which I also really strongly dislike) is fine, but has to be recognised for what it is, which is tribalism about certain ways of writing and speaking. Because you're allowed to do almost whatever you like with English (certain technical fields excepted for which precision is important), and its nature means very few rules remain constantly applicable – look at the spelling vs the phonetics and figure out how the spoken word "fish" could arguably be written "ghoti." Then get on a forum and spend hours arguing about it with strangers, but take a moment to recognise that you're enjoying yourself as you do, and you wouldn't be able to do that if there really was a proper binding Right and Wrong to worry about.

 

[John Brown]

If you're really not sure about the difference between "who* and "whom", stick with who. It's generally forgiven if you use "who" when it should be "whom", but you look like a todger if you use "whom " when it should be "who".
IMO.

 

[guineafowl21]

My tuppence with the benefit of an Oxford first in English and 25 years as a professional writer and editor (and a certain amount of joy that after a quarter of a century I can cite it): FWIW, probably sweet FA, communication is the point and the best thing about English is how and how much it changes. People often worry about correctness and very seldom consider fun.

I wrote a whole essay in undergraduate finals about words like "gamahuching" and had a very enjoyable exploration of notions of the obscene in doing so; that word isn't used any more, which is a shame as it's a lot of fun to say, but only because of that am I able to gain so much joy from discovering it. English has more words than any other language, many times the amount you can use in French or German, at least partly because rather than trying to safeguard and ossify itself like French does, it happily steals language from elsewhere and moves on, with a je ne sais quoi that makes it fun to play with.

Any prejudice against neologisms like "gotten" (which I also really strongly dislike) is fine, but has to be recognised for what it is, which is tribalism about certain ways of writing and speaking. Because you're allowed to do almost whatever you like with English (certain technical fields excepted for which precision is important), and its nature means very few rules remain constantly applicable – look at the spelling vs the phonetics and figure out how the spoken word "fish" could arguably be written "ghoti." Then get on a forum and spend hours arguing about it with strangers, but take a moment to recognise that you're enjoying yourself as you do, and you wouldn't be able to do that if there really was a proper binding Right and Wrong to worry about.

Ghoti:
GH from enouGH to make F.
O from women to make I.
TI from moTIon to make SH.

EDIT: Looked up the O one.

One argument for *some* standardisation is - spare a thought for those learning English as a foreign language.

Pity them, dealing with the OUGH sound in enough, bough, through, although, etc. If there had been some attempt at standardising, our spellings might not have got so wild.

In return, we have to deal with the madness, in Romance languages, of gendered nouns and endless verb tables which aren’t really needed in English.

It can raise a chuckle, like the American tourist asking the way to “Looga-bo-rooga”.

Loughborough

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The problem with linguistic laxity is that there are people who take advantage of it to mislead or cheat others; in addition, a cavalier attitude to punctuation is often associated with the use of incorrect vocabulary. The whole point of language is to enable us to communicate in a way which conveys information accurately and efficiently, hence the rules of grammar to ensure that we can uniformly structure that information in an agreed way. Using words we don't understand correctly is simply increasing the noise while interfering with the signal. Likewise, the rules of punctuation are there to ensure that our meaning is precise: it's not "pedantry" to wish to impart knowledge efficiently, but it IS ridiculous to expect other people to guess what you mean because you won't, or can't, express yourself clearly. You might as well say that everyone understands your intention and context when you get behind the wheel of a car, so why bother to learn the rules that govern safe driving or submit to unnecessary rules like obeying speed limits, buying insurance, servicing your vehicle, getting an MOT and other such superfluous pedantry?

An insistence that the rules don't apply to ME is dangerous and foolish in many contexts, including driving and communicating with other people.

We agree the whole point of language is to enable us to communicate in a way which conveys information accurately and efficiently,

A legal agreement is intended to record unambiguously what is intended by the parties to it, yet would be judged incomprehensible by most people. A simple bullet point summary intelligible to most almost probably has no legal foundation but the principal points may be understood.

To communicate effectively requires the use of language which can be understood by an interlocutor even if it doesn't meet high academic standards or legal precision.

When faced with the equivalent of 10-40 pages of impenetrable legalese folk simply click on "accept" - Google, Microsoft, banking, loans, leases etc. They trust/assume there are laws regulating business conduct, and often arms of government control over corporate behaviours.

 

[velar]

Ghoti:
GH from enouGH to make F.
TI from moTIon to make SH.
Not sure about the O.

One argument for *some* standardisation is - spare a thought for those learning English as a foreign language.

Pity them, dealing with the OUGH sound in enough, bough, through, although, etc. If there had been some attempt at standardising, our spellings might not have got so wild.

In return, we have to deal with the madness, in Romance languages, of gendered nouns and endless verb tables which aren’t really needed in English.

It can raise a chuckle, like the American tourist asking the way to “Looga-bo-rooga”.

Loughborough

Yup nailed it! The "o" as in "women"...

 

[selectortone]

gamahuching

I've still got a gamahuchi in a drawer somewhere. It died when I went on holiday and forgot it. Oh wait...

 

[John Brown]

Yup nailed it! The "o" as in "women"...

GBS, wasn't it?

 

[Chris152]

Can you explain the difference between "who" and "whom"?

Completely missed it - brilliant!

 

[Jake]

When faced with the equivalent of 10-40 pages of impenetrable legalese folk simply click on "accept"

I think that's precisely the reason they are so verbose.

 

[scooby]

Old people here used to use borrow and lend interchangeably.

I recall when I was young, I used to drive my nan mad by using the word lend incorrectly

 

[Yojevol]

I/me and sat/sitting are my pet hackle raisers.
I also wince at the common error of using 'underestimate' or 'understate' where 'over......' is correct when used with 'cannot'. People don't seem to understand the double negative they are employing.
Brian

 

[Scruples]

The rules for who/whom are fairly straightforward.

Who is for the subject of a sentence.
Whom is for the object.

Rather like nominative/accusative in Latin, a language whose words we’ve borrowed, but not structure. There are hardy any other examples, so it’s a bit of an oddity.

So when you write ‘whom is coming to the party?’ That’s wrong, as you indicate, because the pronoun should be in subject case - ‘who is coming..?’

Your first sentence is technically correct, but - please forgive me - does it not sound just a little bit pompous, even archaic? What if I answer in the same construction: ‘to youm I direct that comment’.

Here’s a challenge for you, or anyone else: can you give me a single sentence where ‘whom’ is essential to the meaning?

No word is 'essential to a sentence since any word can be sunstituted or the sentence reformed. But, 'To whom shall I send the subscrption?' is a sentence where the word whom is necessary. It could be written differently, of course. 'What is the name of the person who will accept the subscription?'

I am unconcerned that I don't know how to use an apostrophe correctly. Pedants agonise and create artificial ambiguous examples - eg: "eats, shoots and leaves" (put the apostrophe(s) wherever you want). Context and syntax generally solves the problem.

Unlike poetry where words and phrases may stir emotions, language is principally about communication. Conveying meaning in a way the recipient understands and can react appropriately.

Latin is an archaic preserve of close to zero relevance today. Split infinitives, words in common usage in the 19th century or earlier etc have no place in modern communication.

Far from improving the quality of dialogue they act as barriers to understanding. Whilst discussion of such may be of academic interest, they may simply serve to feed the egos of those who arrogantly believe their learning evidences superiority.

Not being concerned about apostrophes is sad, as they are an important part of written punctuation. Many do, however, don't know the correct usage but the world still turns, although it may twitch a bit.

The rules for who/whom are fairly straightforward.

Who is for the subject of a sentence.
Whom is for the object.

Rather like nominative/accusative in Latin, a language whose words we’ve borrowed, but not structure. There are hardy any other examples, so it’s a bit of an oddity.

So when you write ‘whom is coming to the party?’ That’s wrong, as you indicate, because the pronoun should be in subject case - ‘who is coming..?’

Your first sentence is technically correct, but - please forgive me - does it not sound just a little bit pompous, even archaic? What if I answer in the same construction: ‘to youm I direct that comment’.

Here’s a challenge for you, or anyone else: can you give me a single sentence where ‘whom’ is essential to the meaning?

'Youm' doesn't exist in the context you used, nor is it a new word that's is becoming popular with English-speaking people, so if your answer contained that word, I would think that you are somewhat lacking.

 

[Chris152]

Afraid to write anything in case I get picked up on an error. [Holds breath...]

 

[GuitardoctorW7]

I just did, didn’t I?

Ha, take that Hemmingway

 

[paulrbarnard]

This discrimination has to stop. I am excluded from a thread because of my disability. I had expected better of the members here. Yes I’m a dyslexic and a pretty bad one at that.

A dyslexic in a thread about language is pretty much the same as a power tool user in a hand tool thread. He knows these things exist but has absolutely no idea about the nuances of the discussion.

 

[John Brown]

But, 'To whom shall I send the subscrption?' is a sentence where the word whom is necessary.

It's not really essential to the meaning. If you wrote "to who shall I send the subscription" you'd still be understood, even though you'd started a sentence with a preposition...