Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > General off-topic  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:31
Kamarate's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Neuchatel
Posts: 1,914
Groaned at 57 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 1,619 Times in 685 Posts
Kamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
See other post. It can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, provided that both the speaker and the listener agree on a given definition.
The Cambridge Online Dictionary disagrees with you. Did you click the link? Or do you disagree with Cambridge?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:31
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,983
Groaned at 69 Times in 52 Posts
Thanked 5,074 Times in 1,802 Posts
crazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Constantly can be used to mean either continuously or frequently. It can mean going on all the time or happening again and again.
if we are in a thread about grammar, then no, it cannot. "constantly" comes with invariability, which is what makes it distinct from "consistently", "repeatedly" and "frequently".

you can of course use the word however you like, since common understanding (as I think Ace1 is pointing out) is often different from grammatical or syntactical precision. which probably means people shouldn't get their knickers in a bunch over the use of "might of" or "could of", come to think about it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:37
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lenk im Simmental
Posts: 1,123
Groaned at 95 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 750 Times in 404 Posts
Keith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of many
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
if we are in a thread about grammar, then no, it cannot. "constantly" comes with invariability, which is what makes it distinct from "consistently", "repeatedly" and "frequently".

you can of course use the word however you like, since common understanding (as I think Ace1 is pointing out) is often different from grammatical or syntactical precision. which probably means people should'nt get their knickers in a bunch over the use of "might of" or "could of", come to think about it.
Wrong. Check with Cambridge, then tell me I am wrong, because I am quoting them.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:43
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lenk im Simmental
Posts: 1,123
Groaned at 95 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 750 Times in 404 Posts
Keith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of many
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
since we're being fetishist about grammar already...

the use of "have" or "had" in formal writing is sloppy to begin with, except perhaps to indicate ownership, and even then there are more expressive ways of indicating the same thing. "would have" or "would have been" are just completely inexcusable, and don't even get me started with "have had". contracting the "have" in phrases like "could have" or "might have" in written English is a completely unpardonable sin (which is where the "of" comes from), to the extent that using "have" in the first place isn't bad enough.

No more of a sin than not starting a sentence with a capital letter
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:43
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,983
Groaned at 69 Times in 52 Posts
Thanked 5,074 Times in 1,802 Posts
crazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond reputecrazygringo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Wrong. Check with Cambridge, then tell me I am wrong, because I am quoting them.
your first mistake is using the Cambridge Dictionary, which is fine for certain levels of education but imprecise and incomplete for higher levels of expression. I mean, since we're already in a thread for pedantic fetishism about grammar.

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:46
Kamarate's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Neuchatel
Posts: 1,914
Groaned at 57 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 1,619 Times in 685 Posts
Kamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Yes, Cambridge definitely gives incorrect definitions because its level is not high enough. I remember reading the "Roger Red Hat" books when I was small and, being such a basic level of English, he actually wore a turnip on his head.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:46
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
I see your point, but I would argue that the usage as 'repeating' IS a general dictionary definition of the term. Specifically, I have only seen one dictionary (in my quick comparative search), which only defines the word as you have. All the other instances refer to the 'repeating' use, commonly as the first definition as well.

But details, detail, details. (Sentence fragment)
Heh. But seriously, can you post the definition that you found? Cos none of the ones I've seen support the specific usage under discussion. "2. Regularly recurring: p" yes, but that's not quite the same.

Edit: Seen it now.

However, as an illustration of just how tenuous our English grammar 'rules' can be, this sub-thread could not have better supported my point

Sp much as it pains me to see posters writing such things as "would of", and indeed a whole myriad of generally accepted Americanisms (not that this example is any less prevalent among native English speakers) that are not 'correct' according to my given British grammar subset, I find myself in the rather awkward position of, if not actually defending the 'incorrect' usage, then certainly not being able to bring myself to criticise it.

One particular bugbear that springs to mind, mainly 'cos I got it while dialing in to a TC yesterday, is "momentarily" to mean 'in a moment', i.e. after a short delay, whereas the normal British usage means "lasting for just a moment". So if a someone says "I'll be with you momentarily" my gut rection is "No, this conversation will last longer than that".

But as I clearly understood what the recorded message meant, how can I say it was 'wrong'?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:52
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,144
Groaned at 33 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 4,951 Times in 2,233 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
Heh. But seriously, can you post the definition that you found? Cos none of the ones I've seen support the specific usage under discussion. "2. Regularly recurring: p" yes, but that's not quite the same.

......

I think the "regularly recurring" definition fits: "but constantly use improper phrases."

The regular recurring use of improper phrases. Me fail?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:54
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Me fail?
Or my bad?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 26.09.2012, 16:56
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,144
Groaned at 33 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 4,951 Times in 2,233 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
Or my bad?
Video Response:
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:02
Kamarate's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Neuchatel
Posts: 1,914
Groaned at 57 Times in 38 Posts
Thanked 1,619 Times in 685 Posts
Kamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond reputeKamarate has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Thank God it's nearly time to go back to work. My head hurts. Have a nice afternoon! Or...

hav a nyce aftanoon
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: grammar question (English)

Recently I've heard people say "First of all...., and second of all...."

How can something be "second of all"? Surely it's simply "second" or "secondly"? Second of all would surely be "first", wouldn't it? So you'd have to say "second of the rest" but that would still be technically wrong. It's something I'd never heard of until the last couple of years or so but I seem to hear it almost on a daily basis now.

To my English ears, it just sounds wrong. Or maybe I just need a bar of choccy right now.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:17
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,232
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Horrifyingly, my best friend (an English teacher) constantly writes the wrong "your/you're" and "there/their/they're" on Facebook. I correct her every time. She really should know given her career choice.
English Literature or English Language?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:26
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lenk im Simmental
Posts: 1,123
Groaned at 95 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 750 Times in 404 Posts
Keith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of many
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
Recently I've heard people say "First of all...., and second of all...."

How can something be "second of all"? Surely it's simply "second" or "secondly"? Second of all would surely be "first", wouldn't it? So you'd have to say "second of the rest" but that would still be technically wrong. It's something I'd never heard of until the last couple of years or so but I seem to hear it almost on a daily basis now.

To my English ears, it just sounds wrong. Or maybe I just need a bar of choccy right now.
You should have some choccy, I really don't think any of this is worth worrying about.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:44
TexasLynette's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Thurgau
Posts: 364
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 421 Times in 183 Posts
TexasLynette has an excellent reputationTexasLynette has an excellent reputationTexasLynette has an excellent reputationTexasLynette has an excellent reputation
Re: grammar question (English)

Thanks for the replies everybody

It's very amusing to observe how a thread I would of thought to die after the second reply initiated such a discussion
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:46
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lenk im Simmental
Posts: 1,123
Groaned at 95 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 750 Times in 404 Posts
Keith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of many
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Thanks for the replies everybody

It's very amusing to observe how a thread I would of thought to die after the second reply initiated such a discussion
Start one on smoking and watch that go
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:49
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zurich Unterland
Posts: 3,315
Groaned at 145 Times in 99 Posts
Thanked 4,850 Times in 1,930 Posts
smoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond reputesmoky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
Thanks for the replies everybody

It's very amusing to observe how a thread I would of thought to die after the second reply initiated such a discussion
"...how a thread I thought would have died after the second ..........."

You gave everyone a chance to practice and learn - and show off.

(Now someone is gonna gun for me, betcha!)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:52
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lenk im Simmental
Posts: 1,123
Groaned at 95 Times in 57 Posts
Thanked 750 Times in 404 Posts
Keith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of manyKeith66 has earned the respect of many
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
"...how a thread I thought would have died after the second ..........."

You gave everyone a chance to practice and learn - and show off.

(Now someone is gonna gun for me, betcha!)
No they won't, they like you too much Please note "too" not "to" everyone
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 26.09.2012, 17:59
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
Recently I've heard people say "First of all...., and second of all...."

How can something be "second of all"? Surely it's simply "second" or "secondly"? Second of all would surely be "first", wouldn't it? So you'd have to say "second of the rest" but that would still be technically wrong. It's something I'd never heard of until the last couple of years or so but I seem to hear it almost on a daily basis now.

To my English ears, it just sounds wrong. Or maybe I just need a bar of choccy right now.
I never really noticed this but I'm surprised it hurts your English ears, if there's a group of things, they're "all", why can't there be a first, second and last of all?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 26.09.2012, 18:31
3Wishes's Avatar
Moderately Amused
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bern area
Posts: 11,354
Groaned at 90 Times in 86 Posts
Thanked 19,674 Times in 8,704 Posts
3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute3Wishes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: grammar question (English)

Quote:
View Post
"...how a thread I thought would have died after the second ..........."
There's the "would have" phrase discussed a few times in this thread that some people hate. To my eyes, smoky appears to use the phrase correctly. Makes me think - why should one avoid using "would have" or "could have"? Is there a better phrase?
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
English grammar question MrVertigo Language corner 38 11.10.2010 02:11
Grammar and pronunciation question kiwiguy08 Language corner 93 10.03.2009 18:58


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:52.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0