• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

Aarrggghhhh! The hanging so has been detected uttered by TV presenters, not only those they are presenting!!!

-------------

Overheard mobile phone conversation: "Where are you to now this moment then?"

(A word of explanation for non-Wenglish speakers: "to" is an interrogative of location*, "by" is the corresponding explicative - eg "Where is that to?" or "Where to was that?", to which a common reply is "By 'ere". * I postulate this can be extended to location in time as well as space: "When to was that?". Note also the double-emphatic auxiliary "I d'do" [I do do] - mainly Pontypool dialect as far as I can tell.)

-------------

Let "z" represent the radius, and "a" represent the thickness. Then the calorific content is proportional to

Pi.z.z.a
 
Is "a number of <somethings>" singular or plural?

As heard frequently these days, "there's" as a contraction of "there is" also gets used where "there are" would be more appropriate, but "there're" would be rather a mouthful. If we accept that (in modern common usage) "there's" is used as a proxy for either, "there's a number of reasons" side-steps the issue.

But which is actually correct? Discuss.
 
.... it's even worse when you consider such expressions as "a number of MPs has/have fiddled their expenses". Your ear definitely goes with "have" but the brain says "has". I think we have to consider "a number of x" as a proxy for "some x".

And then there's the situation where the number/some in a a particular instance actually turns out to be one.
 
I agree "1" is a logical possibility for "a number", but I think if somebody told me they had "a number of justifications" and it turned out to be just one justification, I would be justified in accusing them of hyperbole.

Note that I am not using "they" and "them" in the traditional plural sense, but as a proxy for "he or she"/"him or her".
 
I'm not sure about other languages, but in Spain and France only one word is used for 'there is' and 'there are', suggesting they do not differentiate.
 
I'm not sure about other languages, but in Spain and France only one word is used for 'there is' and 'there are', suggesting they do not differentiate.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in french, but in Spanish it is differentiated (esta and estan)
 
As I understand it, your words mean 'he,she,it is and they are', but in the phrase used by BH, I would use 'hay'. Disclaimer-this from memory!
 
As I understand it, your words mean 'he,she,it is and they are', but in the phrase used by BH, I would use 'hay'. Disclaimer-this from memory!
Click to expand...
That's reasonable - but I would use esta/estan for declaratives, and hay for a query in a shop (just my view)
 
There was a chap on Breakfast a few days ago, called Gwynne, promoting his book on grammar (it's not expensive on Amazon, I ordered a copy for the hell of it). His thesis seemed to be that language is necessary for thought, and without an adequate knowledge of the function of language as a tool then the ability to think and come to correct conclusions is compromised (I paraphrase). He said that this used to be well recognised, and that grammar used to be taught as a foundation stone of education (hence "grammar schools"), and that the general level of education has dropped since the teaching of grammar was more-or-less abolished in the '60's.

I don't totally agree with everything that was said, and (in the limited time of the interview) there were important points missed out: my take on this is that however one uses spoken language, precision in written language is essential for understanding - spoken language usually has a visual context to clarify ambiguity, or the listener is present and can interact with the speaker to elicit clarification. Written text has to stand on its own, therefore must avoid ambiguity. While there is often a certain amount of redundancy so that misuse of grammar or spelling can be error-corrected by the reader, this is not always the case and a misspelt or misplaced word in the sentence structure produces an incorrect or ambiguous meaning.

However, although I say this is less important in spoken language, people who have not been taught proper written language will write what they hear and say because they know no better. Hence we get "should of" because "should've" has been misheard, and when written should be "should have".

Extending the thesis then, one might conclude that the attempted proletarianising of education by the "progressive" educationalists of the late 20th century was actually counterproductive: allowing the children in state education to "just express themselves" while the elite continued to have a public education and were still taught the correct construction of language has resulted in a larger gap in ability instead of a smaller one.

For the record, I went to a state grammar school in the early '70's. I was obliged to take French and Latin, which were a mystery to me because one is immediately expected to learn sentence structure and conjugation of verbs when I didn't know what a verb is, even in English. I think it is fair to say I only developed an interest and knowledge of English as an adult.
 
A recent phone-in subject on BBC Radio Suffolk was "Is the apostrophe necessary, do we need punctuation?" :confused:

English was taught during college release days throughout my 5 year apprenticeship in the '50s.
 
My wife was, yesterday, telling me of a programme she had just been listening to (on Radio4) which suggested there were 3 grammars in common use - written, spoken, and texting. Each of these has its own rules which, as suggested above, are sensible in context.
Myself, I concluded some years ago that there had been a change of teaching of grammar, as I found I was picking up english grammar rules from what was being taught on latin - I've no idea when this change would have started, but my experience was in the 50's
 
Black Hole said:
'60's
Click to expand...
4291 said:
Grocer's apostrophes. ;)
Click to expand...
Nope, I definitely defend the use of two there! I know the traditional rules say it should be "'60s", but the pluralising of numbers presented as digits is an exception I go along with. Perhaps I should have used "sixties" to avoid controversy.
dandnsmith said:
My wife was, yesterday, telling me of a programme she had just been listening to (on Radio4) which suggested there were 3 grammars in common use - written, spoken, and texting. Each of these has its own rules which, as suggested above, are sensible in context.
Click to expand...
Rules of grammar are generally considered to fall into two classifications: "proscriptive grammar" (how it should be used) and "descriptive grammar" (how it is actually used). I suggest written grammar falls into the former category, while spoken and texting grammar falls into the latter!
dandnsmith said:
Myself, I concluded some years ago that there had been a change of teaching of grammar, as I found I was picking up english grammar rules from what was being taught on latin - I've no idea when this change would have started, but my experience was in the 50's
Click to expand...
I guess that makes you anti-split-infinitive?
 
Black Hole said:
I guess that makes you anti-split-infinitive?
Click to expand...


To boldly enter this thread, I too saw the interview and although broadly agreeing with the interviewee's comments, my own experiences differed from his statement that it all went down hill in the '60's.
I went to a comprehensive from the late '50's to the mid '60's and we received a thorough grounding in grammar, spelling and punctuation. We were also taught Latin ( for three years until I could escape ) and Spanish or Russian.

However our daughter was in primary in the mid '80's and we were horrified to see that the simple spelling test, administered most mornings had been dropped from the curriculum, but since the head was 'old school', he kept to his principles and they continued them with the agreement of parents. Sadly this was not the case when she moved schools. But this is where parental involvement is paramount.

Coincidentally I received a copy painting quote this morning and the spelling and missed letters was atrocious eg. "balastrade", "metet" (metal). Another letter received was so poorly written it was described (apologies to Eric Morecambe) as: all alphabet letters were there but not necessarily in the right order!
 
1959-1967

Pr slippers, 2 walking coats, 2 pr boots, overtrousers, 2pr reading glasses, loads of maps, a car, a wife, a daughter and lots of stuff that I won't mention in case it gets nicked !:p
 
In case anyone is mystified, the use of split infinitives will have been beaten out of our older members by teachers indoctrinated by proscriptive grammar (forgive them, they knew no better). As such, the split infinitive (where the adverb comes before the verb in the infinitive, eg the frequently-cited infinitive "to go" being split by the adverb "boldly" when classically it should be "to go boldly") will grate on their ears.

However, there is nothing actually wrong with a split infinitive other than it being considered by some "bad form", and it lends itself to the poetic use of English. The reason it is looked down on by those with a classical eduction is that, in Latin, it is impossible to split an infinitive because the infinitive is one word not two.
 
Black Hole said:
Nope, I definitely defend the use of two there! I know the traditional rules say it should be "'60s", but the pluralising of numbers presented as digits is an exception I go along with.
Click to expand...
If it is good enough for the OED and the Plain English Campaign then it is good enough for me as is their and my acceptance of its use in TLA's and other acronyms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top