While I do use the singular “they”, I prefer to reword:
The person who wrote the email simply did not know what word to use and believed that root, not route, was correct.
That’s an imprecise rule of thumb: “effect” can be a verb, and “affect” can be a noun, though they are less commonly used than other possibilities. For example, a psychotherapist might try to effect a change in their patient’s affect.
I was so into the comma thing I forgot what I was going to say. I was using s/he for a while, instead of they, and then started doing what Amarone does, rewriting the sentence to use person or one.
Yes, that’s often a possibility. Once, many years ago, I helped to draft changes to the rules of an organisation by removing “he”, “him” and “his” from the rules. Since it was a legal document, to avoid ambiguity we generally found it best to replace the pronouns with the appropriate noun, e.g., change
If a new member fails to say which division he should be assigned to, the Secretary may assign him to a division.
to:
If a new member fails to say which division the member should be assigned to, the Secretary may assign the member to a division.
Not very pretty, but it does convey the meaning, which is all that you ask of rules.
You sound like William Shatner.
Where I live, “route” and “root” are said exactly the same way.
Come to think of it, the GPS in our car rhymes it with “out” ("Your rowt guidance is now complete).
I agree on this point. I must still dock Cartooniverse some points, however, as he failed to use quotation marks to distinguish between his references to words and his actual use of the words.
This shit is NOT FUNNY. None of it. Not even the first time. :dubious:
Well, that depends on the locale in which it is being said. In England it is pronounced the same.
Well, you’re the judge on whether you find it funny. However, the serious point is that spell checks don’t mean that you don’t need to know how to spell – and there’s a similar point to be made about automated checking of grammar.
Oh I agree thoroughly with the OP, it’s just these predictable elementary school-like jokes that come following it that I am commenting on.
I am an English teacher. I hear OTHER ENGLISH TEACHERS misuse grammar/vocabulary and not be able to spell and/or construct proper sentences on a daily basis. I heard AN ENGLISH teacher say “Hey! Can anyone borrow insert kid’s name here[ a pencil?”
The English language is decaying and nobody cares. Grammar is NOT taught at schools except by a few teachers (obsessed like myself). I feel like it’s a lost cause. It’s almost ANNOYING to know the rules of grammar because all I hear is misused pronouns, adjectives and adverbs. My ears are bleeding!!!
If I may?
Sometimes, when I post here, I try to watch my spelling and my grammar, but sometimes I get lazy and write a word such as “criticize” like this: “criticise”.
Now, I know that the latter spelling may be okay in Great Britain, but since America is my adoped country, I feel like I ought to at least follow its spelling rules, right?
Then again, when I see something I have written which is too late to edit, I say to myself, “Fuck it. They’ll know what I meant to write, else what are they doing here??”
And we mustn’t forget: way back in hist’rie wie spelt wurds as clos to there sound as we cud, bicaus’ ther weir no speling rulz.
Rite?
Thanks
Quasi
Like a lot of similar things, you were taught incorrectly. A lot of so-called rules of English never made any sense to start with and were, in many cases, quite arbitarily invented.
A classic example is the old notion that there’s something wrong with splitting infinitives. It’s an absurd rule, never made any sense, and is no longer taught (or shouldn’t be.)
Of course it’s not decaying. People have always struggled with English grammar. The people of my parents’ generation (early Boomers) were no more literate than today’s schoolkids.
I can’t understand how anyone would think things are getting worse, when even the most cursory examination of the history of English and the spread and extent of literacy in the English-speaking world demonstrates the exact opposite. Historically speaking we are not long past the point when English could barely be said to even have a standard way of spelling things. If you go back even further, to, say, Shakespeare, English had no clear or universally regarded rules at all.
I would further point out that varying pronounciations are also pretty old news - in fact, once upon a time they were so common we ended up with two words meaning the same thing. “Critter” is how people used to pronounce “creature,” and “cuss” is how they once pronounced “curse.” Eventually the new pronounciation and the old coexisted, and the words separated and came to be synonyms.
I grew up in Philly. Route 66 is pronounced root 66…
I think, “We’ve got…” would be okay, but I would prefer, “We have…”
As an English teacher you really should know that the things which upset you and Cartooniverse are not new or recent, as you seem to imply. They’ve been happening ever since people started writing English.
Do you honestly believe that a there was ever a time when everyone wrote “perfectly”? If you read the letters of Yale University professors of a hundred years ago, you’ll see pretty much the same kinds of complaints as you two are making now.
I’m sorry, but the sky isn’t falling.
Yes, the English language is changing faster than most of us would like. Grammar is the brake that keeps it from going totally out of control.
Point of order:
“She ain’t here neither.” is a grammatical sentence. You don’t have to like it, but it is. It has a subject, a verb and a predicate in a logical English format. It is comprehensible to, I’m going to guess, 99.99% of the english speaking world.
“Ain’t neither she here.” is ungrammatical. It follows no rules for syntactical construction and requires a lot of deconstruction on the part of the reader to understand.
You many continue.
I don’t think that would mean the same thing the writer meant.
“We have two rental cars” means “we are in possession of two rental cars.” “We got two rental cars so you could…” means “At a point in the recent past, we acquired two rental cars so that the following condition could exist.” That is clearly what the sentence meant to say.