Dr. Shades's Grammar Lesson of the Day

[_Quasimodo]

Thanks for that interesting tidbit of linguistic history! I wasn't aware of that.
I'm with you on this, but as you said, choosing the wrong word in these situations can be confusing and even change the entire meaning of what is being said. I have seen situations when even when viewed in context, it was not immediately obvious which meaning was actually intended, because the use of either word would have been a grammatically correct construction, depending on what the writer actually meant to say.

I think I may be a font of completely useless information. I used to be fair at Trivial Pursuit, but it's a game that no one plays anymore.

Most of the people on this board are quite erudite. Their English, in posts, is quite good. However, there are one or two that refuse correction and are not interested in improving their diction.

I just read this and thought of this thread.

1. They are Ice Core Samples idiots over 100's of thousands of years.... They aren't "made up".

2. Yes, sometimes it was colder, and sometimes it was hotter.
There is ZERO correlation of Co2 in relation to the temperature of the earth.

Let's use some brain power morons.
The graph clearly shows that Co2 DOES NOT match earth temperature levels.
If the liberal claim was true, Co2 would be high every single time earth temps were high.
But, earths history doesn't show that. Thus, Co2 has no bearing on the earths temperature.

Pay attention.... You all say it's Co2 causing it, nothing else. Not magical fairy dust.... Co2!
You guys are wanting to tax, etc. on Co2.... again, not magical fairy dust.

They are Ice Core Samples idiots over 100's of thousands of years....

I think he meant "There are ice core samples, idiots, that are over hundreds of thousands of years old..."

Four dots to an ellipsis...? The carnage continues...

[_Bret Ripley]

Another construction problem is that of the split infinitive. While
listeners seem to understand the meaning, “to” should be next to the verb.
The Error: He was told to not go near the water. “To go” is the infinitive which
is split. Hence, the sentence should have read: He was told not to go near
the water. The error is so common as to remain unnoticed especially in
spoken communication.

...I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and ... when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split...

[_Gunnar]

... seemingly literate, articulate and admirable posters ...

I don't know if I would fit any of them... but ...
In my life, I used to READ and WRITE in English and German --- far more than speak.
That means, I use structures I've read somewhere. For example here, on MDB.

There are words/compositions/structures are from Essential English of C. E. Eckersley I know.
Others, most of them from this site ...

Yes, you are one of the articulate, highly literate and admirable posters who fairly often makes grammatical errors, but you are not a native English speaker, so you have a better excuse than most of us here. Yet you sometimes manage to school us about our own language. Few, if any of us here, are literate in as many languages as you are, and that is, in itself, admirable. I sometimes get the urge to point out some of your most obvious errors to you, but I would want to be sure that you not take such help as an intent to belittle or embarrass you before I do. Besides, I figure that as you continue to post here, you will naturally continue to improve your English proficiency and discover some of your errors on your own.

[_Dr. Shades]

off putting

off-putting

The two words describe something, right? And if you dropped one of those words, the other word would no longer be applicable, right?

Therefore, it's a compound adjective. So "off-putting" is correct.

[_Jersey Girl]

off putting

off-putting

The two words describe something, right? And if you dropped one of those words, the other word would no longer be applicable, right?

Therefore, it's a compound adjective. So "off-putting" is correct.

Why isn't it "off putting"?

If there's another post where you have explained this, just link me up so you don't have to bother with it.

[_ludwigm]

you are one of

Thank You.

literate in as many languages as you are

This is only a side effect to be born by a small folk, the Martians.

I sometimes get the urge to point out some of your most obvious errors to you, but I would want to be sure that you not take such help as an intent to belittle or embarrass you before I do.

You (and any others) are welcomed. In PM and/or public.
I am not perfect, and I can not be. That is, why I am not a Mormon. They all go mad for perfection.

Besides, I figure that as you continue to post here, you will naturally continue to improve your English proficiency

Especially in slang.
Which is a different English language, as Schwiizertüütsch, Wiener German and Hochdeutsch in German dialects.

discover some of your errors on your own

... too more ...

[_JAK]

Speaking of grammar, I still find it remarkable how many otherwise seemingly literate, articulate and admirable posters to this forum mix up and improperly use "their", "there" and "they're"; "your" and "you're"; "to" and "too"; "its" and "it's"; and even "then" and "than." Also, it seems that more often than not people seem unaware that the the past tense forms of the verbs "to lead" and "to mislead" are not spelled the same way as their present tense forms.

Hi JAK! It's good to hear from you again. It's been a long time since we last interacted. I always admired your comments!

On splitting the infinitive, however, that doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It doesn't usually (if ever) change the meaning of what is being said. In some languages it is not even possible to split the infinitive, as the infinitive form of their verbs is just a single word. Perhaps the possibility of splitting the infinitive can be viewed as giving English a slightly additional bit of versatility that some other languages lack. I think splitting the infinitive is generally less severely frowned upon than it used to be (perhaps partly due to the great popularity of Star Trek with it's "to boldly go where no man has gone before."). Still, though, I always avoid splitting the infinitive myself.

Thank you for your kind words, Gunnar!

It is your capacity to express with clarity, dignity, and intellectual honesty
that always has been most impressive.

The emergence and evolution of language(s) over many centuries has been adaptive
and fluid. Different languages have expanded adding new terms, greater complexity in construction, and
even within a relatively short time space have altered what passes for acceptable construction
evolving as many examples illustrate.

Without question, what was once unacceptable in formal discourse has become
normalized by repeated use. This has been accelerated by the audio stream of
radio and television.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Speaking of grammar, I still find it remarkable how many otherwise seemingly literate, articulate and admirable posters to this forum mix up and improperly use "their", "there" and "they're"; "your" and "you're"; "to" and "too"; "its" and "it's"; and even "then" and "than." Also, it seems that more often than not people seem unaware that the the past tense forms of the verbs "to lead" and "to mislead" are not spelled the same way as their present tense forms.

Hi JAK! It's good to hear from you again. It's been a long time since we last interacted. I always admired your comments!

On splitting the infinitive, however, that doesn't really bother me as much as it used to. It doesn't usually (if ever) change the meaning of what is being said. In some languages it is not even possible to split the infinitive, as the infinitive form of their verbs is just a single word. Perhaps the possibility of splitting the infinitive can be viewed as giving English a slightly additional bit of versatility that some other languages lack. I think splitting the infinitive is generally less severely frowned upon than it used to be (perhaps partly due to the great popularity of Star Trek with it's "to boldly go where no man has gone before."). Still, though, I always avoid splitting the infinitive myself.

Thank you for your kind words, Gunnar!

It is your capacity to express with clarity, dignity, and intellectual honesty
that always has been most impressive.

The emergence and evolution of language(s) over many centuries has been adaptive
and fluid. Different languages have expanded adding new terms, greater complexity in construction, and
even within a relatively short time space have altered what passes for acceptable construction
evolving as many examples illustrate.

Without question, what was once unacceptable in formal discourse has become
normalized by repeated use. This has been accelerated by the audio stream of
radio and television.

JAK

I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to line our screen names up on the thread.

Because it's been a long time...

Jersey Girl
:-)

[_Dr. Shades]

The two words describe something, right? And if you dropped one of those words, the other word would no longer be applicable, right?

Therefore, it's a compound adjective. So "off-putting" is correct.

Why isn't it "off putting"?

If there's another post where you have explained this, just link me up so you don't have to bother with it.

Here.

[_Dr. Shades]

Please take a look at the following sentence:

I prefer to leave the heavy lifting around here to those that think it matters.

Remember, "who" is used for people, whereas "that" is used for non-humans. Therefore, the quoted sentence should've been written:

I prefer to leave the heavy lifting around here to those who think it matters.

See the full lesson at viewtopic.php?p=30380#p30380 .