Assume v. Presume

One where it's not needed and one missing from where it is and dubious capitalisation and plurals? Or have I missed something more glaringly obvious?
 
The grocer's apostrophe is the main point, but yes one can go through it with a fine toothed comb. However, that said, "potato's" isn't completely incorrect - if one interprets the apostrophe as indicating a missing letter or letters as in "isn't".
 
So the grocer's apostrophe is never wrong in potato's as a plural then? And there's us scoffing it. (The apostrophe, that is). But potatoe's would always be wrong.
My spell checker OKs the first but not the second.
 
Last edited:
Nah, carry on scoffing. It's wrong for sure, and apostrophes replacing missing letters are always reserved for when the letters omitted don't sound in the contraction (which does not apply in "potato's") - I'm just saying that while an ignorant person might spell potatoes "potato's" (or maybe by tradition in grocery circles), an intelligent person could do so and use the counter-argument when a pedant of slightly less intelligence points it out. And then sell him a ginger cake that's near its expiry date.
 
Black Hole said:
in the mean time
Click to expand...

prpr said:
Tut... meantime.
Click to expand...

Black Hole said:
That's a matter of opinion. "Today", "to-day", and "to day" have all been standard spelling at one time or another, and therefore remain valid.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this some more (while washing up!), and I think there's a lot to be said for writing in the way one would speak when it's not intended to be in a full "literary mode". Literary mode is how I am describing a situation where you don't know your audience and they don't know you except through the particular piece of writing, and it is meant to be formal. No use of contractions, precise grammar and punctuation, etc etc.

I don't say "meantime" as all one word (with not the slightest gap between "mean" and "time"), so why should I write it as all one word (even if I was in full literary mode)? This is like the difference between "everyday" and "every day" - which have two distinct meanings and are frequently misapplied. No doubt spelling fashion will remove the space permanently over a period of time, the same as "to day" has become "to-day" and then "today", and the spelling fashion then informs pronunciation, which reinforces spelling...

My soap-box example in these cases is "headteacher", now commonly seen on the signs outside schools (and in my opinion a comment on the qualifications of the people inside). When did you ever hear somebody say that with no break between "head" and "teacher"?
 
Black Hole said:
I've been thinking about this some more (while washing up!), and I think there's a lot to be said for writing in the way one would speak when it's not intended to be in a full "literary mode".
Click to expand...
Would that be writing phonetically? Or is that stretching the meaning?

I often think about "maybe" and "may be" when I'm writing them. I sometimes have to say it in my head to see which one I want to use.

I think I say "meantime" without a gap - I certainly think it - when it is in the context of "while something else is going on". Of course if it's Greenwich Mean Time that's different :)
 
On Sky News yesterday a Conservative MP said that Theresa May had the support of "two hundred odd MPs".
Did he mean that Mrs May has the support of about 200 [Conservative] MPs; or that she has the support of 200 MPs, all of whom are strange?
If this is the collective view of the odd MPs, what are the views of the even MPs?
 
Black Hole said:
Seen in the tea room at Claydon House:
Only food and drink bought on the premises can be consumed here

Tsk.
Click to expand...

I can only assume/presume that it is the word "can" that you are objecting to.

The Oxford Dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/can-or-may) states:
People are often uncertain about whether there is any difference between can and may when these verbs are used to ask for or grant permission...
There is a widespread view that using can to ask for permission is wrong and that it should only be used in expressions to do with ability or capability...
But the 'permission' use of can is not in fact incorrect in standard English. The only difference between the two verbs is that one is more polite than the other. In informal contexts it’s perfectly acceptable to use can; in formal situations it would be better to use may.
Click to expand...
So the tea rooms are just being rude.:D
 
Presume.

As I have said many times, dictionaries record how words are used rather than how they ought to be used. I'm quite clear that "can" is an ability whereas "may" is a permission. My logic is that if two words are precisely synonymous, there's no need to have two words, hence my thesis that there are no synonyms. I can eat my own peanuts in the tea room, it would be difficult to prevent, but I wouldn't be welcome to do so.

The problem is that, in general, people don't think that deeply and don't appreciate the fine distinction between words that seem to be synonymous, which is the theme of AvP. The dictionary makes very little distinction between "curious" (as an adverb) and "inquisitive" - but if I want an adverb I'll use "inquisitive" and if I want an adjective I'll use "curious". Without that distinction it is impossible to determine the meaning of a phrase such as "mice are curious creatures": is a mouse a 'curious creature', or is it inquisitive? (Okay, it's probably both, but that's not the point.)

"Bought" isn't very good either. If somebody with learning had drafted the notice, it would have read: "Only food and drink purchased on the premises may be consumed here". These things are forgivable when spoken, less so when written for public display.
 
Last edited:
EEPhil said:
On Sky News yesterday a Conservative MP said that Theresa May had the support of "two hundred odd MPs".
Did he mean that Mrs May has the support of about 200 [Conservative] MPs; or that she has the support of 200 MPs, all of whom are strange?
If this is the collective view of the odd MPs, what are the views of the even MPs?
Click to expand...
For some reason, this doesn't bother me. The use of the word "odd" is accepted as meaning ”plus a few more", and although there could be a confusion as to whether the MPs are peculiar this version seems (to me) to have a much lower likelihood. It doesn't have the same magnitude as "curious". Maybe if the overall population of MPs was known to have a significant proportion of peculiar ones, "odd" would be equally confusing in the context.
 
Well, bugger my truss. I'll have to be more careful in future. Funnily enough, my spell checker didn't pick that one up, and as I was using my computer, I can't even blame auto correct.:roflmao:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top