advertisement


“I’m looking to get back what I paid”.

I always associated the statement as acknowledging the item was sold recently to the now seller, in a public place, such as the same forum that is easily searchable.
Therefore, defusing the very likely reposts of "but you paid that 3 months go..." .

A case of....Yes I know but I've barely used it, it's in the same condition as it was then plus the price was/is quite fair.
 
Once I've decided I no longer need something I want it gone and I'll take the best the market offers. The price I bought it at is irrelevant. The only things that might not apply to are esoteric, rare and valuable or collectible items for which you might have to wait to find the right buyer. Most hi-fi stuff doesn't fit any of those categories and in the used market is somewhat interchangeable, ie unless you're really fixated on a specific component, you can choose from a broadly similar range of speakers, amps etc.

All that said, there's nowt so queer as folk! I can understand private owners being a bit irrational, but I've come across so many dealers (not talking hi-fi particularly) who don't seem to understand the basic business logic of turning over your capital as frequently as possible.
 
Whaleblue said:
That said, I find the argument that “languages evolve” annoying. Yes, they do
Click to expand...
Martyn Miles said:
I’m aware language ( and the way it’s spoken ) evolves and changes.
As has been said above, we don’t know if a poster is dyslexic.
Click to expand...

Yes, a language, and especially OUR language evolves, but in nearly all circumstances, with vocabulary, not grammar. Example (McDoanald's) 'I'm loving it' has really become part of normal English now, but grammatically, it's very wrong. 'Love', 'like', 'hate' etc are STATIVE verbs (i.e. they're a state of mind) and cannot, grammatically, be used in the continuous. Personally, I don't have a problem with this 'activation' of stative verbs, but still, it ain't English as she's formulated.

Generally, one can tell a dyslexic faux pas and this wouldn't portray itself in incorrect homophones (e.g. here, hear, there, their, your, you're; Loose/lose isn't even a homophone, so no excuses there !)

So many scribes and speakers start a sentence with a conjunction now (so, and, but etc.) Conjunction = joining word; therefore cannot, grammatically, start a sentence. Spelling errors I can understand, simply because of the multilingual origins of English. I don't have sympathies for 'error correction'. If you proof-read what you are about to publish, you'd see most errors. Besides, American correction/underlining assistance is usually just confusing, as there are many spelling differences between the two linguistic types.
 
Marky-Mark said:
The apostrophe struggle is real, ..... You get to lay, lie, lain and laid ... forget about it.
Click to expand...

Why the struggle? Apostrophe use is one of the simplest grammatical functions and it baffles me why/how people get this wrong.

Apostrophe of omission (stick one in if you've left letters out ('I would've gone out....)
Apostrophe of possession (it belongs to someone/thing) (The children's toys; his wife's shopping)

The ONLY exception to this rule, for obvious reasons, is that IT'S does not belong; it's omission only, so ITS is belonging to it. You can't have both uses with one apostrophe !

B.t.w., did you know that the inventor of predictive text has recently died? His funfair will be hello on Sundial. (Think about it !!!!!!!)
 
Mike Reed said:
Yes, a language, and especially OUR language evolves, but in nearly all circumstances, with vocabulary, not grammar. Example (McDoanald's) 'I'm loving it' has really become part of normal English now, but grammatically, it's very wrong. 'Love', 'like', 'hate' etc are STATIVE verbs (i.e. they're a state of mind) and cannot, grammatically, be used in the continuous. Personally, I don't have a problem with this 'activation' of stative verbs, but still, it ain't English as she's formulated.

Generally, one can tell a dyslexic faux pas and this wouldn't portray itself in incorrect homophones (e.g. here, hear, there, their, your, you're; Loose/lose isn't even a homophone, so no excuses there !)

So many scribes and speakers start a sentence with a conjunction now (so, and, but etc.) Conjunction = joining word; therefore cannot, grammatically, start a sentence. Spelling errors I can understand, simply because of the multilingual origins of English. I don't have sympathies for 'error correction'. If you proof-read what you are about to publish, you'd see most errors. Besides, American correction/underlining assistance is usually just confusing, as there are many spelling differences between the two linguistic types.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with And or But.
http://www.thewriter.com/what-we-th...-okay-to-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction/
 
Well, Mike, it seems I have a kindred spirit on this Forum.
I’ve been accused of belonging to the ‘Grammar Police’ by some on PFM.
When at Secondary School, we had a rather frightening English Master.
Now I look back, I realise he was dedicated to his subject and we boys ‘were going to learn things properly ?’
Thank you John Garrity, yes I did learn properly from you...
 
Last edited:
Martyn Miles said:
Yes, some of us have much to thank our teachers.
Incidentally, my wife is one.
Click to expand...

Quite a common question I come across, " Ah, you were an English teacher". "Yes", I reply, "but I was also a teacher of English" Only applies to native language (+ literature?) teachers.

My wife's a former (very bad) student (drives me up the wall with her lack of linguistic prowess). I can't speak Mandarin and Taiwanese, though, and understand computing! :(
 
Mike Reed said:
Thanks for that, Bob; very interesting. Those passages are all about (modern) usage but none questions why it's called a conjunction. The use of these in this way is so widespread nowadays as to be accepted sentence structure, I guess. It is, though, a relatively modern aberration (i.m.o.).
Click to expand...
From the King James Bible, 1611: Genesis, Chapter 1.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Etc.
 
Mike Reed said:
Why the struggle? Apostrophe use is one of the simplest grammatical functions and it baffles me why/how people get this wrong.
Click to expand...
I think you have 'struggle' the wrong way around - I'm acknowledging that half the internet is grammatically stumped by apostrophes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top