Common errors in English

Ramrod · 16-09-2004, 15:31

A useful site, enjoy

**Chris** · 16-09-2004, 15:35

Hmm, wonder if we can add it to the T&Cs that you have to read that site before posting?

Nugget · 16-09-2004, 15:57

What do you expect from a language where the plural of sheep is sheep?

And as for the fact that the last book I read was in German, so I couldn't read the language

bopdude · 16-09-2004, 16:43

And what exactly is English when it has been added to and chopped about so much by all the invaders over the year's , never mind how much we've butchered and are still butchering it

andygrif · 17-09-2004, 00:13

Comes to something when we need the yanks to tell us how to speak English. Although I notice that the most common mistake I see is missing... which is people putting it's when it should be its.

nffc · 17-09-2004, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by andygrif

Comes to something when we need the yanks to tell us how to speak English. Although I notice that the most common mistake I see is missing... which is people putting it's when it should be its.

CD's instead of CDs (plurals eg CDs ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3.99)
"could of" instead of "could have"

a few more that **** me off.

Nikko · 17-09-2004, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by bopdude

And what exactly is English when it has been added to and chopped about so much by all the invaders over the year's , never mind how much we've butchered and are still butchering it

The year's what? Which year's? Which year's what?

I assume your intended reference was the plural of year - years as opposed to the possessive of a year or unspecified years?

**Russ** · 17-09-2004, 00:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

"could of" instead of "could have"

That happens on this site SO often

nffc · 17-09-2004, 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

That happens on this site SO often

Yeah I know- apart from laziness, and without wishing to blow my top, I don't really tend to make bad grammatical errors really (when I'm trying!).

If I was going to pick up bad spelling / grammar every time I saw it, I'd have about 1000 posts by now

BBKing · 17-09-2004, 08:24

People complaining about 'bad grammer' always amuse me.

Nug - learning German helps with the old grocer's apostrophe problem - my late grandfather, who was a great lover of Germany and spoke the language well once invited a German friend to come along to his school (he was a primary school teacher in rural East Anglia). The friend came in, looked at a few books with Teutonic thoroughness, found an unfortunate child with an apostrophe in the wrong place and announced 'Don't you know the difference between a genitive and a plural?'.

Needless to say the result was blank incomprehension. In German, of course, the grammar is vital, and the s at the end of the word means its in the genitive case, indicating possession. All German children have to know this, but in the UK we haven't really gone for grammar teaching in a big way for ages.

The s/'s problem comes from us using the French ending s to signify plural and the German genitive ending, which is, er, also s, to indicate possession. The apostrophe was added to distinguish between the two. It sums up very neatly why English is a jumbled up mess.

(German plurals are a mess though, which is possibly why we didn't use them, except for rare cases like child/children and ox/oxen).

Richard M · 17-09-2004, 09:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBKing

(German plurals are a mess though, which is possibly why we didn't use them, except for rare cases like child/children and ox/oxen).

b0x0r and b0xen?

BBKing · 17-09-2004, 09:20

Quite. It's an Americanism, presumably derived from ox. Another example of how inventive English speakers can be.

Quiz:

How many plural forms are there in English?

How many ways can you pronounce the letter 'c'?

What's the only adjective in English that agrees with the noun?

Trivial fact - the German for 'login' is 'einloggen'.

17-09-2004, 09:26

ohhh dont get me started

"Bought" and "Brought"

andygrif · 17-09-2004, 10:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

CD's instead of CDs (plurals eg CDs ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£3.99)
"could of" instead of "could have"

a few more that **** me off.

This might be a controversial opinion, but I think that CD's is correct. The apostrophe signifies removal of letters, and as you have removed isc from discs then I would suggest that CD's is correct. Discus

**Russ** · 17-09-2004, 10:44

The CD's plastic case would be right.

Anything else does my head in