Re: Bob and Jerry discuss T.O.

John Harshman wrote:
Snidely F Whiplash wrote:

"James Laurenson" <James_Laurenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148509582.196239.301810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| John Harshman wrote:
| > James Laurenson wrote:
| >
| > [snip]
| >
| > >
| > > Know why? Because (assuming that English is their first language),
| > > somebody who cannot even take the time to spell or use grammar
| > > correctly or even consistantly is almost certainly unlikely to have
| > > thought about or even understand the topic about which they are
| > > failing to write about.
| >
| > It's a rule of Usenet that every spelling flame must contain at least
| > one spelling error. You have one; can you find it? Extra points for
| > finding your grammatical error (I would say "errors" except that one | >
of them is becoming standard gender-neutral usage.)
| >
| > [snip]
|
| I somehow managed to add a 'l' onto the end of 'actual' (already
| spotted so it doesn't count).

Not part of that paragraph so it doesn't count anyway.

| I also spelt 'consistent' and 'consistently' with an 'a'. (But at
| least I was consistant with my mistake ;)

That's the one.

| I also started that second sentence with the conjunction 'because'.
| In fact, I notice I started a few sentences with a conjunction, looking
| back through it. I have a tendency to write in speech more than in
| formal prose and that leads to the temptation to let each sentence
| flow from the next.

I wouldn't consider that an error. And you can split infinitives freely
for all I care.

The preposition "about" is repeated inappropriately.

"...or even understand the topic about which they are failing to
write about."


This seems kind of cute to me, and not an actual error
in grammar to the extent that it would impede the
understanding. It seems more like a possibly playful
redundancy.

Sometimes, `bad grammar' can be turned into an art form.
In the hands of a master, it can be a joy to behold:

`Now is the time for all good men to come to.'

`There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true
that those things which make us human are, curiously
enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on
this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts
of tiny trumpets, we have met the enemy, and not only
may he be ours, he may be us.'

`We are confronted with insurmountable opportunities.'

(OK, there's no error in this last one, but it's just too
good to be left out.)

That's an error, but not the one I was talking about (because I failed
to notice it). I was talking about the disagreement of tense between
"thought" and "understand"; you should replace "understand" with
"understood".


Is an agreement in tense required?

I thought maybe that `understand' might be an implicit
infinitive, eg:

Because (assuming that English is their first language),
somebody who cannot even take the time to spell or use grammar
correctly or even consistantly is almost certainly unlikely to have
thought about or even [to] understand the topic about which they
are failing to write about.

Then in the clause following `consistantly is ... unlikely' there
would be a movement from a past perfect to a present
form.

It's odd I agree, considering that the word even
is included. And the whole sentence would make more
sense if the first subsidiary clause were switched with
the second. So:

Because (assuming that English is their first language),
somebody who cannot even take the time to spell or
use grammar correctly or even consistantly is almost
certainly unlikely [to] understand or even to have thought
about the topic about which they are failing to write about.

But is the original really wrong?


I hope to god there are no grammatical errors or misspellings in this
grammar/spelling flame. If there are, please don't point them out.

I'm in favour of descriptive rather than prescriptive linguistics, so
you shall never have had nothing to fear from me nohow,
nowhere, in the second place for that matter.

David

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bob and Jerry discuss T.O.
    ... |>> somebody who cannot even take the time to spell or use grammar ... |> It's a rule of Usenet that every spelling flame must contain at least ... | least I was consistant with my mistake;) ... "...or even understand the topic about which they are failing to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bob and Jerry discuss T.O.
    ... yet Jerry makes consistant mistakes. ... Please show me a Creationist who cannot spell or use grammar, ... Is it that you think sentimental nonsense should be acceptable because ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: US condemns British education
    ... How can a teacher teach effectively when they cannot spell, ... Why does grammar really matter if you're not ... In recent years there have been numerous comments from employers organisations complaining about the poor quality of the students the schools and universities are churning out. ... I can accept that there will be low-grade jobs where it doesn't matter a damn if an employee can only write in txt spk, - but for most quality jobs, an ability to write an articulate report with accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation, is still a necessity. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: hide wavy underlines for spell checking
    ... It seems that turning off spell checking is only for my machine, ... I turned off spell check & grammar checking, ... > spelling errors in this document" on the Spelling & Grammar tab of Tools | ... Names and special formatting are showing ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: Grammar Checker for OE?
    ... there still ain't gonna be no grammar checker in OE ever. ... He was a college educated man who could not spell or write a coherent letter to save his life, and he admitted that it embarrassed him. ... No, IGNORANCE!), but it should be a cause for shame. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)