advertisement


As I've always suspected ...

"Lunch" is, AFAIK, an abbreviation of the word "Luncheon" which is, a countable concrete common noun.

How then is it not preceded by a singular determiner in the sentence that Mike says is correct?
 
monstrous lie said:
Is this serious !?
Grammar is the road map of language. Trying to say anything to anyone without knowing how a sentence fits together is like trying to give directions without the use of words like "right", "left", "north" and "south". It just makes everything so much harder. This is so obvious when you try and decipher the intended meaning of many posts on forums and the like. You must have noticed, surely?
ML
Click to expand...

and new roadmaps are being developed and so long as there is a shared understanding, then what harm evolution?
 
gintonic said:
and new roadmaps are being developed and so long as there is a shared understanding, then what harm evolution?
Click to expand...
No harm at all. I agree that evolution is desirable.

But evolution is about something developing so that it becomes more fit-for-purpose. Ignoring the rules of grammar just removes the clues and instructions about what the string of words is supposed to mean. That's not making it more fit-for-purpose.

I don't have a wide knowledge of foreign languages to draw on, but I can remember some German. That language provides a perfect example of what happens if grammar is ignored: most sentences would become utterly unintelligible, both in speech and writing. It's an extreme example, but my point is "why do that?" Why would you willingly go along with the downgrading of a language so that it is less accurate, less effective and less pleasing to use? You wouldn't do that to your hi-fi, would you?
ML
 
merlin said:
"Lunch" is, AFAIK, an abbreviation of the word "Luncheon" which is, a countable concrete common noun.

How then is it not preceded by a singular determiner in the sentence that Mike says is correct?
Click to expand...

Got me ! What determiner had you in mind for 'have you had lunch?' A number, maybe or just 'no' ? You certainly wouldn't use an article in that question, even though 'lunch' is a countable noun.

As for lunch being a 'concrete' noun, cementing relationships with a SANDwich comes to mind here, Merlin (another Mike?)
 
Screen_Shot_2018_01_19_at_15_56_45.png


https://twitter.com/qikipedia/status/954374389859954688
 
There are people in the world who collect train numbers. Or truck names from Eddie Stobart. There are those who count the rivets on a model locomotive.
Grammar obsessives are in much the same category. I kind of agree with them, good grammar gets the accurate message across with less guesswork.
 
Gosh, but this thread has survived the festive season ! STILL, (can't copy your entry re. Finnish for 'pedant'), that's Q.I. , but at least it's not 'colon ****er' !

I may be a self-confessed pedant, but I do have sympathies with misspellings. What I don't have any sympathy for is the frequently confused 'your', you're', 'there', 'their', 'they're' and many other such examples. The same people continue to make the same errors and don't seem to be remotely interested in reading, marking and learning from others' texts. This, to me, is ignorance; not making the occasional cock-up or typo. as most of us do.
 
Last edited:
Mike Reed said:
Gosh, but this thread has survived the festive season ! STILL, (can't copy your entry re. Finnish for 'pedant'), that's is Q.I. , but at least it's not 'colon ****er' !

I may be a self-confessed pedant, but I do have sympathies with misspellings. What I don't have any sympathy for is the frequently confused 'your', you're', 'there', 'their', 'they're' and many other such examples. The same people continue to make the same errors and don't seem to be remotely interested in reading, marking and learning from others' texts. This, to me, is ignorance; not making the occasional cock-up or typo. as most of us do.
Click to expand...
others' ?
 
I frequently misread things, trying to get away with a quick scan. My spelling is getting worse too. I read the thread title as “As I’ve Always Said” which could be an interesting topic- all shades of End Of.
 
Mike Reed said:
Could be, but doesn't really gel with 'such', I think you'll agree.
Click to expand...

What on Earth am I saying? (Thanks, Darren) I got really confused by Kendo's 'questionable' post above. Really must avoid evening posts ! The possessive apostrophe's position determines who/what it refers to; e.g. others' (plural, of them); other's (singular, of one other). The ONLY exception (that I can think of) is 'its'. Commonly confused, but the logic is that 'it's' MUST represent the apostrophe of omission (it is/ it has), so 'its' cannot conform.

Most punctuation and much grammar is quite logical and can be explained. To many, I feel, grammar/punctuation is something learnt by rules which have little correlation with logical thought. This is wrong; even if you weren't sure, you could probably figure it out.

Paragraphs, or lack of them, put me off reading those rambling posts which would otherwise prove interesting and informative. A perfect case in point is helpful advice given on the Wam a day or so ago. The author spent ages expounding his experience and knowledge on a few posts, but didn't separate the themes into paragraphs. There are others who post in bite-sized short sentences; pithy, to the point maybe, but lacking a little substance and composition, possibly.

Yet another financial reporter in this morning's paper writes 'IN hindsight'. Why? It's always been 'WITH hindsight'. How and why did the preposition change? In foresight, in insight; sounds awful, so why 'IN hindsight'? Sorry, just my beef at declining standards and spurious contrivances in our increasingly and justifiably global language.
 
Probably best to have created a British English one, Chefren. The correlation between loathing, cats and the English language escapes me, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top