"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote ...

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.


10,000 quid was stolen.

Steve

On 16/10/2013 20:03, 'Mike' wrote:
Mandy Rice Davies had an answer to that Malcolm

Her answer was related to newspapers of the day
One Mail
One Mirror
and as many Times as she could get.

On 16/10/2013 18:35, 'Mike' wrote:
I don't need the attention thank you very much, I don't have anything to
advertise

Not your cruising
the theatre,
reunions
Etc?
None of which have any connection with gardening, unless of course you
are cruising in local gardens.

On 16/10/2013 17:59, Bob Hobden wrote:
"David Hill" wrote ...

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.

English or American version?




English, no doubt!;~). How does the American version differ, if it
does?


Well the English could well be "Some tea-leaf made off with the dosh"

It certainly would round ere gov.

Whilst in the better parts of Surrey it would be a capitol tea.

On 16/10/2013 20:41, shazzbat wrote:
10,000 quid was stolen.


Half inched.

David I am delighted that they have all registered.

No none of those, it's a book.

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------
www.rneba.org.uk




"David Hill" wrote in message ...

On 16/10/2013 18:35, 'Mike' wrote:
I don't need the attention thank you very much, I don't have anything to
advertise

Not your cruising
the theatre,
reunions
Etc?
None of which have any connection with gardening, unless of course you
are cruising in local gardens.

On 16/10/2013 17:27, David Hill wrote:
On 16/10/2013 16:41, Another John wrote:
The language is going to hell, thanks to generations of young
illiterates who are now actually working, and (e.g.) writing newspaper
articles, having been brought up with an education of dubious values,
and receiving a "further" education in Facebook, Twitter, and the
internet in general, from their fellow illiterates.

Compared with all the fpelling miftakef of old I think you fhould count
your blessingf. Even the Grauniad these dayf contains correctly fpelled
wordf although not alwayf the right onef to make any fenfe.

I'd say that one of the worst things with papers and publications in
general is that they are no longer proof read, just have spell checker
on the computer scan them.

I expect you will enjoy the "My Pea Sea" poem then (RHS of page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_checker

And then has an American designed grammatical style checker applied.

I don't believe that they teach English grammar and things like clause
analysis in schools nowadays.

One of the more curious things is that English as a foreign language
teaches the unfortunate recipients grammatical stuff that is not taught
at all now in English lessons. Subjunctives and precise meanings of
could, would and should for example. Even when I was at school this sort
of hard grammar was only dealt with in Latin classes. eg

I should be obliged if you would vs I would be obliged if you could

One of them (now the more commonly heard form in native English) has a
veiled insinuation of incompetence of the person being asked.

Conan Doyle has Sherlock Homes typically get it exactly right. The
strict grammatical correct form now sounds stilted to modern ears.

Language evolves - get used to it. Preserved in aspic it is useless.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
On 16/10/2013 18:35, 'Mike' wrote:
I don't need the attention thank you very much, I don't have anything to
advertise

Not your cruising
the theatre,
reunions
Etc?
None of which have any connection with gardening, unless of course you are
cruising in local gardens.

Just for the record it should read " None of which HAS......" NONE is
singular, something the BBC and other media seem to forget.

Bill

Well somebody had to come up with it

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde
Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit
pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a
pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot
slpeling was ipmorantt!


Mkie


---------------------------------------------------------------
www.rneba.org.uk





"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...

On 16/10/2013 17:27, David Hill wrote:
On 16/10/2013 16:41, Another John wrote:
The language is going to hell, thanks to generations of young
illiterates who are now actually working, and (e.g.) writing newspaper
articles, having been brought up with an education of dubious values,
and receiving a "further" education in Facebook, Twitter, and the
internet in general, from their fellow illiterates.

Compared with all the fpelling miftakef of old I think you fhould count
your blessingf. Even the Grauniad these dayf contains correctly fpelled
wordf although not alwayf the right onef to make any fenfe.

I'd say that one of the worst things with papers and publications in
general is that they are no longer proof read, just have spell checker
on the computer scan them.

I expect you will enjoy the "My Pea Sea" poem then (RHS of page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_checker

And then has an American designed grammatical style checker applied.

I don't believe that they teach English grammar and things like clause
analysis in schools nowadays.

One of the more curious things is that English as a foreign language
teaches the unfortunate recipients grammatical stuff that is not taught
at all now in English lessons. Subjunctives and precise meanings of
could, would and should for example. Even when I was at school this sort
of hard grammar was only dealt with in Latin classes. eg

I should be obliged if you would vs I would be obliged if you could

One of them (now the more commonly heard form in native English) has a
veiled insinuation of incompetence of the person being asked.

Conan Doyle has Sherlock Homes typically get it exactly right. The
strict grammatical correct form now sounds stilted to modern ears.

Language evolves - get used to it. Preserved in aspic it is useless.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote ...

On 16/10/2013 16:55, Spider wrote:
On 16/10/2013 14:51, Gary Woods wrote:
David Hill wrote:

Around £10,000 were stolen from a house
Or should it be
Around £10,000 was stolen from a house.


10,000 quid was stolen.

Steve

10 grand got nicked

On 16/10/2013 21:22, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/10/2013 17:27, David Hill wrote:
On 16/10/2013 16:41, Another John wrote:
The language is going to hell, thanks to generations of young
illiterates who are now actually working, and (e.g.) writing newspaper
articles, having been brought up with an education of dubious values,
and receiving a "further" education in Facebook, Twitter, and the
internet in general, from their fellow illiterates.

Compared with all the fpelling miftakef of old I think you fhould count
your blessingf. Even the Grauniad these dayf contains correctly fpelled
wordf although not alwayf the right onef to make any fenfe.

I'd say that one of the worst things with papers and publications in
general is that they are no longer proof read, just have spell checker
on the computer scan them.

I expect you will enjoy the "My Pea Sea" poem then (RHS of page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spell_checker

And then has an American designed grammatical style checker applied.

I don't believe that they teach English grammar and things like clause
analysis in schools nowadays.

One of the more curious things is that English as a foreign language
teaches the unfortunate recipients grammatical stuff that is not taught
at all now in English lessons. Subjunctives and precise meanings of
could, would and should for example. Even when I was at school this sort
of hard grammar was only dealt with in Latin classes. eg

I should be obliged if you would vs I would be obliged if you could

One of them (now the more commonly heard form in native English) has a
veiled insinuation of incompetence of the person being asked.

Conan Doyle has Sherlock Homes typically get it exactly right. The
strict grammatical correct form now sounds stilted to modern ears.

Language evolves - get used to it. Preserved in aspic it is useless.

Do you really think text speak and teenage grunts are positive progress?

On 2013-10-16 19:40:35 +0100, Pam Moore said:

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:02 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.

As the'd say round here
"It's over by there"

On this side of the Bris'l Channel they'd say "by yerrr", never
"here".

Pam in Bristol

But that's not 'grammar' but 'English as she is spoke'! When my
stepson was working for a local farmer some miles away, his parents
drove down to visit him for the first time. As they were leaving the
farmer said "Now you know where he be to". I'm afraid those delightful
and particularly local forms of our language are fading into obliving,
partly because of television and partly because of people moving around
the country for work reasons. But surely that's dialect, which obeys
no rules at all, rather than grammar?
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 16/10/2013 22:17, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-10-16 19:40:35 +0100, Pam Moore said:

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:02 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer
did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.

As the'd say round here
"It's over by there"

On this side of the Bris'l Channel they'd say "by yerrr", never
"here".

Pam in Bristol

But that's not 'grammar' but 'English as she is spoke'! When my stepson
was working for a local farmer some miles away, his parents drove down
to visit him for the first time. As they were leaving the farmer said
"Now you know where he be to". I'm afraid those delightful and
particularly local forms of our language are fading into obliving,
partly because of television and partly because of people moving around
the country for work reasons. But surely that's dialect, which obeys no
rules at all, rather than grammar?


You're not going to tell me that here in Wales they speak in Di alect?

In article ,
David Hill wrote:
On 16/10/2013 21:22, Martin Brown wrote:

Language evolves - get used to it. Preserved in aspic it is useless.

Do you really think text speak and teenage grunts are positive progress?

Compared to taking their 'facts' from the Daily Wail, probably :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 2013-10-16 22:24:45 +0100, David Hill said:

On 16/10/2013 22:17, Sacha wrote:
On 2013-10-16 19:40:35 +0100, Pam Moore said:

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:25:02 +0100, David Hill
wrote:

Thank you David, for giving me that opportunity! Nah then: wheer
did ah
put me pipe? It wer' round ere some wheer....

J.

As the'd say round here
"It's over by there"

On this side of the Bris'l Channel they'd say "by yerrr", never
"here".

Pam in Bristol

But that's not 'grammar' but 'English as she is spoke'! When my stepson
was working for a local farmer some miles away, his parents drove down
to visit him for the first time. As they were leaving the farmer said
"Now you know where he be to". I'm afraid those delightful and
particularly local forms of our language are fading into obliving,
partly because of television and partly because of people moving around
the country for work reasons. But surely that's dialect, which obeys no
rules at all, rather than grammar?


You're not going to tell me that here in Wales they speak in Di alect?

No. Dai alect. ;-)
--

Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
www.helpforheroes.org.uk