Actually both "Can not" or "cannot" would be acceptable. But can you spot what's wrong with my sentence here?
Written English - Evolving or Corrupting?
- Thread starter Mesquite
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Actually both "Can not" or "cannot" would be acceptable. But can you spot what's wrong with my sentence here?
Possibly true boatman, but my question was in reference to what's wrong with the first sentence in the post in question.
Sorry folks, I got a 'G' when I took my GCSE English exam, so I'm one of them. I just love spell check, bring on the F7 key in MS Word
I'm sorry but I don't agree with the OP, or should I write Original Poster?? No offence meant but we are the older generation using the younger generations tools. The English language, along with many others, are constantly evolving whether we like it or not. Its not that the language is corrupt but rather its like cutting out the dead wood. The English language is overly complicated and seriously needs trimming anyway. Lets face it, how many words do we need that pronounced the same, mean different things? How many words do we need that are spelt the same but pronounced differently? The "text speak" as we call it is only a way of shortening words to speed up getting the general meaning of the sentence across. I do write "LOL", "IIRC" and "PMSL" and other abbreviations when posting on an online forum. I wouldn't use them if I was writing a letter to someone and I certainly wouldn't use it when corresponding professionally. OK, I hate it when somebody posts and abbreviates every other word so that the whole sentence looks like someone has dropped a scrabble board but I generally find that I don't come across this very often. Probably because most of the sites I frequent would not interest the ones that would post in that format. Just not sick enough I suppose!! (Or whatever the latest name for cool or ace is) 
German has recently been reformed. One of the major changes is the loss of the eszett (ß) symbol and it has now been replaced by a simple "ss". Many Germans and Austrians were up in arms about losing the symbol of their language. However, there was no such outcry from the Swiss as they had long since dropped the eszett in its published literature and simply wrote "ss" instead.
My spelling, punctuation and grammar is terrible but that doesn't make me less intelligent. I'm pushing 42 and I don't think I'm going to improve now, unless I work at it, but I do have an HND and a Degree with Honours under my belt, among numerous other professional qualifications. Thank goodness for spell checker!!
I don't see the point of getting mad about text speak, people using words out of context, poor spelling or poor grammar on a forum I frequent. I'm just be glad that they have a keen interest in a similar subject to me. I read their stories, chew the fat, envy the skills and admire the same things as them. After all, isn't that what we are here for?
German has recently been reformed. One of the major changes is the loss of the eszett (ß) symbol and it has now been replaced by a simple "ss". Many Germans and Austrians were up in arms about losing the symbol of their language. However, there was no such outcry from the Swiss as they had long since dropped the eszett in its published literature and simply wrote "ss" instead.
My spelling, punctuation and grammar is terrible but that doesn't make me less intelligent. I'm pushing 42 and I don't think I'm going to improve now, unless I work at it, but I do have an HND and a Degree with Honours under my belt, among numerous other professional qualifications. Thank goodness for spell checker!!
I don't see the point of getting mad about text speak, people using words out of context, poor spelling or poor grammar on a forum I frequent. I'm just be glad that they have a keen interest in a similar subject to me. I read their stories, chew the fat, envy the skills and admire the same things as them. After all, isn't that what we are here for?
If you use the word "both" then the word between the two subjects should be "and" not "or".
As boatman pointed out, the words "both" and "or" don't match grammatically. However his post inferred that I should have used the word "and" in place of the word "or." In fact it would have been more proper had I used the word "either" in place of the word "both." After all, the sentence infers that one is selecting one or the other, not combining them.
There is a great story of a Times columnist who wrote that he had made 15 deliberate mistakes in his column and would give a bottle of champagne to any who spotted them all. The publishers had to stop the offer after a deluge of correct answers. Most people who took up the challenged spotted more mistakes than the author intended which is a way of saying that we could play this game all night and I am tired. Tell me the "correct" answer if it pleases you.
This is a classic tipping point in the language and is nothing new.
Look at primary sources from every century and you will see the shift in grammar, vocabulary, spelling and syntax. I struggle to fathom Shakespeare (have you ever tried to cope with "The Tempest?), whilst in turn an Elizabethan may say the same about Chaucer, who in his time would be flummoxed by early English.
It's a question of perspective. A lot of us here were educated long enough ago to be able to identify misuse, bad spelling, grammar and text speak and be annoyed and frustrated by it because it isn't what we know and use. If you are of an age where that IS your language then to you, that is normal.
The problem though is when dogma gets in the way of precision; correcting poor spelling and grammar is seen as elitist and passing value judgements instead of allowing freedom of expression. Personally, I think that it is a lazy betrayal.
Look at primary sources from every century and you will see the shift in grammar, vocabulary, spelling and syntax. I struggle to fathom Shakespeare (have you ever tried to cope with "The Tempest?), whilst in turn an Elizabethan may say the same about Chaucer, who in his time would be flummoxed by early English.
It's a question of perspective. A lot of us here were educated long enough ago to be able to identify misuse, bad spelling, grammar and text speak and be annoyed and frustrated by it because it isn't what we know and use. If you are of an age where that IS your language then to you, that is normal.
The problem though is when dogma gets in the way of precision; correcting poor spelling and grammar is seen as elitist and passing value judgements instead of allowing freedom of expression. Personally, I think that it is a lazy betrayal.
I belive it has a lot to do with your target audience. It doesn't matter what situation your in as long as everyone has the knowledge of what certian abbriviations/ spellings etc mean, then you can write anything you like. I would write [and speak] very differently depending on who I am dealing with - my kids, my wife, my mates, my boss, clients, the queen etc.
I suppose this also applies to what format is used, on a phone I can understand text speak being used to convey a point as quickly [and cheaply] as possible [did folks use a form of text speak when sending telegrams?]. In an e-mail perhaps certian abbriviations - most of my work e-mails will contain words, phrases and abbriviations which wouldn't be used in everyday conversations and therefore would look like gobble-de-gook to most, but are perfectly understandable to the guys I'm sending it to. On a bit of paper [Haven't done that for a long time] all the bells and whistles.
What does annoy me is inadequate proof reading, as others have said it doesn't take much to look over what you've written [or even think about it a little while your writting] to try to catch mistakes or re-phrase something a little better. It's all about communication, it doesn't matter what words you use and in what order, if people can't understand you it's bad english.
I suppose this also applies to what format is used, on a phone I can understand text speak being used to convey a point as quickly [and cheaply] as possible [did folks use a form of text speak when sending telegrams?]. In an e-mail perhaps certian abbriviations - most of my work e-mails will contain words, phrases and abbriviations which wouldn't be used in everyday conversations and therefore would look like gobble-de-gook to most, but are perfectly understandable to the guys I'm sending it to. On a bit of paper [Haven't done that for a long time] all the bells and whistles.
What does annoy me is inadequate proof reading, as others have said it doesn't take much to look over what you've written [or even think about it a little while your writting] to try to catch mistakes or re-phrase something a little better. It's all about communication, it doesn't matter what words you use and in what order, if people can't understand you it's bad english.
Last edited:
You just beat me to it as that is exactly the thing I was going to mention.
More generally ..... whilst I regret the use of poor English I can't help thinking that it is a losing battle - a bit like the French trying to stop the wide use of English words instead of French ones eg Le Weekend
