Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
OT Grammer question
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? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|