I do use alternative (phew) routes when i know that the main road is likely to be jammed solid with stuck traffic...but you have to be of a fairly self sufficient nature to do so, no good trying it ill prepared with inadequately tyred or unsuitable vehicle and lacking proper clothing and sustenance...local knowledge obviously helps, and you may still not make it if less well prepared drivers block your way.
Unsuitable vehicle also includes a wrongly tyred vehicle that would otherwise have a good chance of getting through...eg some 4x4's.
|
|
|
HJ, as a fellow holder of grade A English (1986, just before the rot set in I flatter myself to think), and furthermore a graduate of Modern Languages (Russian and Serbo-Croat specifically) including elements of linguistics and philology, I think you're being a little over dramatic. Without sloppiness, laziness, inaccuracies and mistakes, there would be no "correct" English as you understand it today. We'd still all be speaking Indo-European.
Language is fluid, dynamic. It changes. It always has and always will. Some changes and adaptations will make it into the official "correct" English language, others will die out.
Black used to have the same meaning as white. Pink used to mean yellow.
There are things in modern English usage which irritate all of us I'd suggest, I have some bugbears too. Grocers' apostrophes, could of, would of, etc. But publicly flagellating an excellent contributor to your forum is a bit OTT if you don't mind me saying.
And perhaps we're not all "English" English on here. Our nation spread our hybrid language around the world, and its hybrid nature and open structure make it much more susceptible to change and development at pace than other languages. It could even be considered the glory of the language and the reason for its success.
I'm sure I'm not saying anything you don't know, but I thought it worth defending Henry all the same.
|
In a nutshell, the reason a lot of us don't post as well.
I do hope my English didn't offend in the above statement.
Pat
|
|
|
HJ as a fellow holder of grade A English (1986 just before the rot set in I flatter myself to think)
Knickers, you young whipper-snapper. Huzzah for HJ.
|
Knickers you young whipper-snapper. Huzzah for HJ.
Age is no guarantee of wisdom. As is plain to see all too often.
Still, nice to be thought of as young at 40. Must be the new 30. (There's a sentiment guaranteed to get up noses.)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not educated to any level whatsoever so I use ieSpell which is American English.
Is there an 'alternative' that uses plain English I could use?
Re: Trunk, well - that's what Elephants have - a boot is where you keep your car jack etc.,
Re: Hood, well - that's what my raincoat has - you lift the bonnet to gain access to the engine.
If you're going all English - then use blimmin English!
|
|
HJ, if we ever go diving together, I'll bring my copy of Fowlers :)
|
"To be pedantic, there can only be one alternative. Why didn't he pick that up? Who educated him?"
I think that you will find that you are wrong with that statement. Oxford English dictionary defines the noun 'alternative' as 'any of two or more possibilities'.
Also, 'why didn't he pick that up?' should probably be 'why didn't he pick up that?' if we are being truly pedantic. But we're not, are we?
|
>>Oxford English dictionary defines the noun 'alternative' as 'any of two or more possibilities'.
My forty-odd year old Oxford dictionary says: (of two things) mutually exclusive,
I think this describes the nub of the matter, that the language moves on. Rather like the mighty A'Tuin.
|
|
Dear me,all about a word alternative or alternate nice start to the new year for Henry.K.I had a grade a in the Dutch language and speak it fluently.Nothing special i was born over there.I make spelling mistakes in the english language but i try to learn from my mistakes.Morons sounds offensive to me .What is a moron ?Sounds moors middle east maybe?Back to the subject.I would use main routes in bad weather (snow) .Happy new year to all.(:
|
|
|
|
Oh so you dont object to *all* americanism, only those that suit you?
I hear there is a spare place at a london uni for would be meglamaniacs and dictators. Do you need the details?
|
I do not like 'over' when incorrectly applied to quantity - it should be 'more than'.
"Like" is often used when the writer means 'such as'.
Then there's words which add nothing to the sentence.
HJ - above - used 'it actually means...' a couple of times.
What does 'actually' mean in that context? Nothing, so get rid of it.
Similarly, road traffic announcers often tell me a road is 'completely closed', presumably that's more closed than just plain 'closed'.
As has been pointed out, it's a living language, and fighting some of the examples above is a losing battle.
The incorrect use of 'over' is so common now as to be more or less accepted.
A final example of the living language - the words 'flammable' and 'inflammable' now mean the same thing - capable of catching fire.
When I was at school in the 1970s, they had opposite meanings.
|
>>the words 'flammable' and 'inflammable' now mean the same thing - capable of catching fire.
My recollection (I probably started paying attention around 1960) is that inflammable always meant 'liable to catch fire' - from 'inflame', rather than the opposite of flammable.
I have been told that, in the jargon of fire professionals (putter-outers, not arsonists), flammable and inflammable are used to distinguish things that will burn if enough heat and oxygen are present(flammable) and things that burn readily or explosively (inflammable). This distinction doesn't appear in my dictionary though.
I did come across somebody the other day using 'inflammable' to mean fire-resistant - maybe it will come to mean that eventually.
|
|
|
|
I agree with you HJ on your rant and good for you for sticking up for the great English language.
It's sloppiness like this which slowly creeps into all walks of life and slowly erodes our culture and identity.
However let's not forget this is a motoring forum and not a grammar school and we all make misteaks. If you were to write a tirade like that each time someone writes something you do not like we'll be too afraid to use the forum.
On a lighter note, how did the Americans like, forget how to spell the word 'tyre' innit?
|
Like HJ I dislike, and complain about, creeping transatlanticism (train station) and dyslexic mispronunciation and misspelling (noocular, what an incredible insult coming from a US president, did the damn fool think no one would notice or mind?).
However, I don't often mention anything like that here. Partly because it can come across as disagreeably patronising and may cause offence, but partly because, as this thread so far shows, pedantry with English can quickly turn into a tinned mild steel container stuffed with wriggling invertebrates.
|
Lud.
For some reason train station also grates with me (they were always railway staions), but then does a bus station become a road station?
|
An article in today's Telegraph.
tinyurl.com/yb9bjqd
|
If text message spelling becomes the norm, I'm going to slit my own throat. Any forum frequented by the younger age group can become practically unreadable, as is a Saxo forum I have used.
|
Passed English Lang with a B in 1976 but I've always been in the make myself understood camp - to the dispair/annoyance of classically educated colleagues.
My copy of Gowers Plain Words is at work but the Oxford guide to English usage suggests that the use of alternative with reference to more than two options is acceptable but not beyond criticism.
|
Chambers dictionary (1993 edition) has alternate, inter alia, as
n. a deputy, substitute; an alternative.
Does the fact that Chambers is the recognised dictionary for the Torygraph crossword carry any weight?
I think Henry and HJ should probably drop hands on this one.
|
|
|
|
Lud, you've a good memory, was harass, rather than harass, ever heard before Michael Crawford used it comically in Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em?
... and when did "for free" rather than "free" become standard English?
I wish I earned a quid every time something got "impacted" instead of "affected".
I find txt spk difficult to read - I trip up over "2" for "to", and resent the nit who saved less time than he cost me.
I stumble over "loose" for "lose" - the former now seems to be winning.
... but of course most of these solecisms must be correct because they pass the spelling check.
Back on topic - I am a sucker for alternate or alternative routes, though I am known among friends for finding circuitous, non-obvious, longer and more time-consuming ways to get anywhere than anyone else!
|
|
HarASS and 'for free' are both Americanisms. 'For free' may have a jokey side as so many commonly-used but grammatically incorrect sayings do.
|
Excellent start to the New Year - HJ is a blogger after my own heart. Heading my own list of crimes against the English language is a great favourite of bloggers - "I WAS SAT", and I hope its demise will be swift.
"I was sat" by WHOM, exactly? In my case, by my parents until the age of one or two, at which point I learnt to sit by myself. I struggle to imagine situations in which one adult forces another to sit, apart from those involving domestic arguments, arrest, and restraint using items such as a straitjacket, the village stocks or a ducking stool - ideal forms of correction for serial offenders...
|
|
Yes, but 'I was sat' sounds Manchester or Cheshire to me. Certainly not American which is what HJ was objecting to. HJ himself might not say he was sat, but he might not complain if someone else said it. English, see?
|
I agree Lud, I was sat was common usage in Yorkshire mining communities. Some parts of the country mix up lend and borrow as in "can I have a lend of your bike"?
|
...can I have a lend of your bike"?...
'Taking a lend' in the North East means taking the Mickey, taking someone for a fool who is not.
|
Bathtub, I agree re "train" and "railway" stations, though it seems we are on the losing side these days!
HJ, you criticised "fries" in your post, but my understanding is that their use in such places as MacDonalds is actually correct, as they are clearly not chips (too finely cut) and that is what the company called them in the US, so it is correct use of the word. I'd rather have that word used for them than chips, at least that way we can differenciate between them and the proper British chip!!
|
|
"English, see?"
Simples!
Edited by oilrag on 03/01/2010 at 09:21
|
For those interested in these things, I can recommend an entertaining book. It's called "The Mother Tongue" ironically by an American, albeit anglophile author, Bill Bryson.
Fascinating to trace the origins of the regional nuances. He links modern regional accents and dialects to the nature of the origimal tribal languages spoken in given regions combined with the influences of those who successfully invaded them. For example he points to regions where the Viking or Norse languages have a bearing on speech patterns to this day.
Paradoxically, some of the linguistic traits found in what we regard as American English can easily be traced back to old English but they have survived on the other side of the Atlantic despite having fallen out of usage here. A quick example would be "gotten". Even the way in which Americans pronounce words can be linked back to this time. It can only be surmised that the Pilgrim Fathers took their speech patterns with them and in isolation from the evolution of English here, the language retained some of its earlier characteristics.
The speech and language pattern most often regarded as correct or "BBC" English or to give it its Sunday name, "Received Pronunciation" is a relatively new phenomenon and does not appear until the late Victorian period. An affected linguistic fashion among the genetic minestrone of the aristocracy it only became popularised by the medium of radio and later television. In its most extreme form it can be heard in recordings of the Queen in her early life but even she has now moderated her speech patterns into a more mainsteam format in recent decades.
I too prefer some discipline in language but to resist its evolution is futile and might even be unhealthy.
|
It's called "The Mother Tongue" ironically by an American, albeit anglophile author, Bill Bryson.
Good book, as are most of Bill's. Unearthed it yesterday clearing some shelves, along with "A Short History of Nearly Everything", also highly recommended (make sure you have nothing else planned that weekend).
|
Calm down guys!
English would not have been lingua franca of the world unless backed by Americans.
Most non native speakers of English learned English (unless on their school curriculum even then it was often aligned with American spelling and accent) via Hollywood movies and online forums.
Nobody owns English language - every language evolves over time.
|
...Most non native speakers of English learned English via Hollywood movies and online forums...
Movilogo,
I think you need to look just a little further back, try the British Empire for a start.
Like it or loathe it, one thing the Empire did was spread English to non-native speakers around the globe.
As far as I am aware, the Pilgrim Fathers exported English to America - don't think it was spoken there before they arrived.
To say most non-native speakers learned English from Hollywood movies and online forums is a bit like Sky who seem to think football began the day they did their first live game.
|
Linguistic nuances don't especially bother me unless they take the form of laziness. Regional accents and dialects contrarliy fascinate me. I love to hear and learn new or indeed old ways of expressing things.
The "Limoncello" set who rather pompously imagine that their way is best are deluded by their particular tribal insularity. One or two classic and mildly amusing errors one hears from that particular sub-set is a confusion over the correct usage of the letter "R". Some examples include our erstwhile Prime Minister being commonly referred to as "Tony Bleh" when the correct pronunciation is "Blay-ir". They describe themselves as having been "soring" wood when in fact they been sawing it.
We should celebrate our differences and enjoy the diversity. Bland sameness leads to linguistic regression not progress.
Not entirely sure what this has to do with your question Henry ! Awfy sorry 'boot that 'ken !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
