Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

English and Grammar Rules

jdechko said:
Actually, the that is normally implied; therefore, it could be considered correct.

I'm not perfect in my spelling or grammar on MacRumors, but I try to be as long as I'm not in too big of a hurry. I certainly do not criticize others in their spelling and/or grammar mistakes.
Click to expand...

Of course, you can imply a meaning, but isn't that the problem with English, ambiguity? Too many people already imply too many things and with them, come grand implications of an insidious nature. "White man speak with forked tongue." :D

I find it better to be explicit as much as possible to convey my meaning clearly to avoid misunderstanding. (Of course, there are those moments when it's pleasant to cast shadows. :p)
 
zimv20 said:
they can modify verbs, as well. for example, "happily ran".

(and that's british-style double-quoting, fwiw)
Click to expand...

You're correct, of course. Thanks for the comment.

Hence the problem with this thread: As soon as someone goes ranting about someone else's grammar, the message itself is prone to have errors -- just as are the responses.

To err, my friends, is human.
 
bousozoku said:
Of course, you can imply a meaning, but isn't that the problem with English, ambiguity? Too many people already imply too many things and with them, come grand implications of an insidious nature. "White man speak with forked tongue." :D

I find it better to be explicit as much as possible to convey my meaning clearly to avoid misunderstanding. (Of course, there are those moments when it's pleasant to cast shadows. :p)
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that people INFER meaning where none may actually be IMPLIED.
 
I was involved in a thread similar to this a little while back.

The outcome was that everyone agreed to put double spaces after a fullstop. :D I know that the evil HTML demons like to remove them, but still you are all obliged by interstellar law to comply none the less.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/121157/
 
stevep said:
Wont - as in 'It was her wont to dine at seven'
Cant - as in 'The slope or cant of a roof' (and I think there are some other meanings as well).
To be precise, 'wont', 'won't', 'cant' and 'can't' are all words.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

I read the original post about cant and wont to contain errors in forming the contactractions for "can not" and "will not." I cannot honestly say that I have heard - or read - either "wont" or "cant" as defined above in common use on this side of the pond. Not to say it isn't correct, but that it is uncommon.

It is more likely that if "cant" or wont" are used that they are missing the apostrophe and not meant as zimv20 and stevep posted.

Not pissing at all really - just trying to have a little fun with it.
 
emaja said:
It is more likely that if "cant" or wont" are used that they are missing the apostrophe and not meant as zimv20 and stevep posted.
Click to expand...
fwiw, i used "wont" in a post just a few days ago.
 
Here are a few that tend to make me cringe:

Was/Were: Believe it or not, there is a proper way to use them in a sentence. They are confused with such great frequency that most people can't remember how to use them correctly. People tend to use was when were is appropriate but not the other way around. I'm starting to feel pity for were.

Like/You Know: I realize these are typically spoken rather than written but they should be removed entirely from a person's lexicon. He was like and she was like, you know? No I don't know and like what? Try counting the number of times you or someone you're listening to uses like in a conversation. It may surprise you. Like, I know I was totally surprised, you know?

Get/Got: Again, there is a place for using these words, but they are often used incorrectly. Did you get one? Yeah, I got one. So now you got one? No, I have one. You get the picture ... or do you got it?

Gonna: What is with this word? What does it really mean? Going to? I'm gonna eat later? Is gonna a real word? Why not just say will? My point is, this non-word is used when others should be used instead.

We should all be happy we're just reading rather than listening to others in these forums. It could be "a lot" worse.
 
ldburroughs said:
Gonna: What is with this word? What does it really mean? Going to? I'm gonna eat later? Is gonna a real word? Why not just say will? My point is, this non-word is used when others should be used instead.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a real word. It's an informal contraction of 'going to'
 
Originally Posted by ldburroughs
Gonna: What is with this word? What does it really mean? Going to? I'm gonna eat later? Is gonna a real word? Why not just say will? My point is, this non-word is used when others should be used instead.
Click to expand...
I bet "fixin' to" really melts your butter...... :D
 
TMA said:
I was involved in a thread similar to this a little while back.

The outcome was that everyone agreed to put double spaces after a fullstop. :D I know that the evil HTML demons like to remove them, but still you are all obliged by interstellar law to comply none the less.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/121157/
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's quite important. It would be nice if the formatting was helpful visually. Conformity speeds reading. Anarchy requires a response. :)
 
I don't think I should start any more "controversal" threads. BTW if my spelling is incorrect, Firefox doesn't have the spelling feature like Safari has it.

I can't believe we're up to 4 pages on this darn darn darn topic.
 
slooksterPSV said:
I don't think I should start any more "controversal" threads. BTW if my spelling is incorrect, Firefox doesn't have the spelling feature like Safari has it.

I can't believe we're up to 4 pages on this darn darn darn topic.
Click to expand...

I believe that would be darned topic, if you please. :p
 
xsedrinam said:
Which would legitimately qualify it as "controversial".....:p
Just couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

That's a good thing. The whole thread could be considered controversial. I'm glad you gave into temptation. :D
 
bousozoku said:
That's a good thing. The whole thread could be considered controversial. I'm glad you gave into temptation. :D
Click to expand...

Should that be 'gave in to temptation'? As in, you're 'giving in' to temptation and not 'giving' into temptation.

;)
 
Slightly OT - can anyone settle a argument I was having.
Is it too many clothes, or too much clothes? As in "I have too many clothes" "I have too much clothes". This is in reference to wardrobe size rather than what somebody is wearing.
My English grammar is awful - I did engineering so am only required to grunt and point, so don't jump on me ;)
 
Qoxiivi said:
Should that be 'gave in to temptation'? As in, you're 'giving in' to temptation and not 'giving' into temptation.
Click to expand...

It would seem so, but I am sure that alternatives and exceptions will be mentioned shortly. The personal enlightenment grows with each post.

Countdown: 10 minutes ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5
 
Nickygoat said:
Slightly OT - can anyone settle a argument I was having.
Is it too many clothes, or too much clothes?
Click to expand...

It's definitely "too much clothing", but "too much clothes" sounds funny. In other words, I don't know :p

Edit: After reading the dictionary definitions and applying logical extension, it's "too many clothes" :)
 
mad jew said:
I would've said too many clothes. I am mad so I quite possibly have it wrong...
Click to expand...
Me too.
But my girlfriends English semantics lecturer told her that was wrong. He isn't English (and a bit of a to**er from all accounts) but didn't tell her why.
What's the rule?
 
The plural of an object does not have a bloody apostrophe.

Too many CD's, apple's, and irritating apostrosphe's... :mad:
 
Nickygoat said:
What's the rule?
Click to expand...

I always thought that 'many' should be used where the item is question could be counted. And 'much' where it couldn't be. So since juice can be measured but not counted, it's 'How much juice would you like?' but since M&Ms can be, it would be 'How many M&Ms would you like?'

I'd say you can count clothes so it would be 'How many clothes do you have?' but since you can't say I have 10 clothes, perhaps it should be 'much'.

I'd go for the most common usage on the grounds that you'll get fewer complaints by writing 'how many clothes?' since more people will consider it correct. Google lists 19,400 results for "much clothes" and 160,000 for "many clothes" including one as a correct answer in a BBC grammar quiz. ;)
 
Blue Velvet said:
The plural of an object does not have a bloody apostrophe.

Too many CD's, apple's, and irritating apostrosphe's... :mad:
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. This is one of my biggest annoyance's. :D
I think it is one of the very first grammar rules I learnt, and quite a simple one to adhere to.

There's also the use of the word "myriad", but that is too petty to bother about.

I was so paranoid about making a mistake in this post, that I checked over it about three times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back