[Archived] Grammar Problems And Lessons

[bazza]

Whilst (or "while") reading the "Your(sic) John Williams" thread, I saw the posts quoted below and wondered if we should have a discussion and English language topic to help those of us learn more about the use of words in our language.

Some of you may think it's not important; others get exasperated when they see bad use of the language.

Personally I think that English is an extremely difficult language to write if you speak it, and to speak and understand it if it is not your native language.

I have the greatest admiration for those whose first language is not English who learn English because of:-

1) the many words that sound the same, yet are written differently and have different meanings

2) the different ways there are of saying the same thing

3) the different sounds of words spelt the same such as the "ough" family

4) the poor diction of people or local pronunciation or dialect.

So........

To all the people on this board who type 'where' instead of 'were'(and there are many), here is the past tense of the verb to be:-

I was

You were

He/she/it was

We were

You were

They were

'Where' should be used in these situations.........

Where is my Rovers scarf?

Where did I put my season ticket?

Where can I buy a ticket for the next match?

'Were' should be used in these situations.........

What would people do if they were John Williams now?

We were sat in the Blackburn End.

You were a season ticket holder before me.

What about these.........?

They were where you left them!

Where were you last week?

Were we where we said we were?

....and these..........?

We're where we said we'd be.

Where we are is where we were last season.

Easy

Who can spot the mistake?

47er did (see below)

The where/were, they're/their/there and your/you're mistakes are bad enough, but the worst ones are the could/should of (instead of HAVE) mistakes.

"I should of" sounds like "I should have"; used a lot on this board and is very poor grammar.

We were sitting in the Blackburn End---not "sat"!

"We were sat" seems to be a Lancashire expression as I found out when I went to live abroad and was corrected to say "We were sitting". Most people up here, even those on radio say "sat".

I get mixed up with "should" and "would" and "shall" and "will".

Over to you

[ABBEY]

OMG id rather eat boken glass ...its message board ffs.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[thenodrog]

Bazza/Professor Higgins I presume?

Wherever they are rovers fans usually wear blue and white shirts whereas last week the staff in the Rovers Store were busy putting their wares on display.

Abbey have you finished with the broken glass? Pass it here next..

[dazmaz]

is there really any need for this thread? sum1 cn tipe lyk dis for all i care, its a forum not a flipping newsparer article. ok so people "where" (correction were) using incorrect grammer, do you really think anyone will attention to this stupid little thread? how do you know such people do'nt have learning difficulties? thus preventing them learning the correct grammer. or is that something your oh so inferior brain over looked

gord can i have the glass when your done

[Hannah]

You will never sort out these problems until you ensure that all teachers understand the rules of grammar!

Subject knowledge should be at the heart of teacher training and it isn't even addressed! I wasn't taught at school and nor was I taught at uni. I am in charge of English at our school and subject knowledge (of staff not me!) is our biggest problem!

I observed a teacher delivering a lesson on definitions and she wrote on the board

Spade: somethink what you dig with

I could list hundreds of other examples that I have seen.

I know that you are now going to hunt down mistakes in this post to prove that I am a crap teacher so have fun in that!

[Al]

For those who want the glass, I will happily crush it for you. Just let me know!

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

[...] I saw the posts quoted below and wondered if we should have a discussion and English language topic to help those of us learn more about the use of words in our language.

Excellent stuff, bazza. Don't worry - I'll keep you company. Get yer blanket out and hold on hard to yer flask, though.

"We were sat" seems to be a Lancashire expression as I found out when I went to live abroad and was corrected to say "We were sitting". Most people up here, even those on radio say "sat".

Firstly, it'd be interesting to know who was correcting you (locals or ex-pats from the south or wherever, etc.) and what your usage was.

Indeed the verbs "sit" and "stand" provide us with an interesting example of the English language here. "We were sat" and "we were sitting" are both perfectly acceptable, standard forms of English - if we substitute the verb "to stand" here, we can quickly confirm this: "We were stood in the Blackburn End" and "We were standing in the Blackburn End" are examples of perfectly good English. The former sees the use of a past participle acting as an adjective - "sat" and "stood" describe the state here - while the latter is an example of the past continuous tense, which is formed by adding the present participle (~ing) to the past tense of "to be" to describe an action in the past that is continuing or ongoing. Hence,

"We were sat comfortably in the Jack Walker, but some blokes were standing in front of us. Fortunately the ball was visible for most of the match against the dark grey Lancashire sky, which was groaning above the Riverside."

Compare the use of "we were sat" above with the following:

"The head waiter sat us in the corner out of sight." (active sentence: "the head waiter" is the subject of the verb "sat")

"We were sat in the corner out of sight by the head waiter." (passive sentence: "the head waiter" is the agent of the action here, not the subject, and is marked by "by")

Thus, unless some nice stewards have come along and helped you to sit down in your seats in the Jack Walker, "We were sat comfortably in the Jack Walker" is not a passive construction and simply describes a state.

If anyone need any more explanations, fire away. And, if anyone has any alternative explanations for the above, feel free. If, however, you want to know why the stewards didn't do anything about those blokes standing up in front of you, well...

I get mixed up with "should" and "would" and "shall" and "will".

In what way?

Finally, for now, one of CLB's examples of the use of "were" is rather interesting in that it differs from the other uses of "were" in his list. How is it different?

"What would people do if they were John Williams now?"

Answers on a postcard. I'll try and get back to it tomorrow evening if my brain is not fried.

[bazza]

After reading the first three responses to this thread I nearly apologised for causing offence as if I'd written something about race, religion or politics.

Thank you Hannah and Al for your contributions.

Wen Y Hu, you've lost me!

"Subjunctive tense" on a postcard?

[colin]

I'm with Bazza

"I'm gunna" for "I am going to" gets on my bosoms.

As does the misuse of the apostrophe.

"This is Garner's reply." (this is the reply that belongs to Garner.)

"ooh look, there are two Garners over there (more than one Garner)

Unlike the stereotype greengrocers' sign (carrot's 50p per kilo)which is carp

Like the " greengrocers'" apostrophe. It apertains to the greengrocers.

I don't suppose it makes a bit of difference, but if you want to make a serious point on this or any other messageboard then it probably helps if your English is not too low otherwise it rather detracts from the point you are trying to make.

Simples Innit?

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

[...]

Wen Y Hu, you've lost me!

"Subjunctive tense" on a postcard?

Ahh, music to the ears. I should have said on a postage stamp.

Yes, it's the subjunctive (the subjunctive is not a tense, by the way) and here it's in a conditional sentence with the subjunctive used in the if-clause to indicate "unreality" and the element of supposition. This example shows it all a bit more clearly:

"What would Brenda do if she were John Williams?"

Brenda is not John Williams, so the unreality of this situation is conveyed by the subjunctive.

Just as a side note regarding conditional sentences, the recent trend especially among US editors and writers is to separate the two clauses with a comma where the if-clause comes first. Consider the sentence:

"If Sam hadn't made the substitutions then we would have lost the game."

This could be read in two ways:

"If Sam hadn't made the substitutions then, we would have lost the game." (then=at that point in the game)

"If Sam hadn't made the substitutions, then we would have lost the game." (then=as a result)

Although the real solution would of course be for Sam to pick the right team from the outset, the comma does at least help to avoid potential ambiguity. Note that when the clauses are reversed, there is no need for a comma:

"We would have lost the game if Sam hadn't made the substitutions then."

"[Then] we would have lost the game if Sam hadn't made the substitutions."

Colin: it's usually greengrocer's (refering to the shop/business) rather than greengrocers' (refering to a number of greengrocers). And God knows why they're selling carp.

That's all for now.

[Amo]

Far from adopting a scholastic prose on this here forum, some basic grammar and spelling wouldn't go amiss (especially those old enough to know better!)

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

I always try to do my best with grammar and spelling but I make as many mistakes as the next person. What really irks me is people who don't even ATTEMPT to use proper English and hide behind a "it's just a messageboard not an exam" excuse. Would you go into a pub and slur at people incomprehensibly? I disagree with Hannah in a way regarding teaching methods/quality. Without wanting to sound my own trumpet, I consider my English to be good/advanced in relation to most people my age. I'm certainly being commended regularly at University for my style and precision of writing, anyway. But the teachers at my secondary school were completely inept in pretty much all departments apart from Maths. I only have these English skills (you may disagree and consider my English to be poor, which is fair enough I suppose!) because I wanted to learn and knew I needed to teach myself more than anything. Bizarrely, posting on sport and gaming websites from a youngish age has helped me develop my skills more than my teachers did, I'd say. So I feel that the responsibility lies more with the person themselves although I'm in no way suggesting that there are people who have suffered from poor educational standards at school.

I suppose what I'm really getting at is that I understand people have difficulty with English, but not all of it is medically (e.g. dyslexia) or externally (e.g. poor teaching/upbringing) caused. It's just effort, care and a desire to put your views across in the best possible way.

Semi-rant over. Feel free to pick my post apart, I'm always happy to receive constructive criticism!

[Hannah]

I disagree with Hannah in a way regarding teaching methods/quality. Without wanting to sound my own trumpet, I consider my English to be good/advanced in relation to most people my age. I'm certainly being commended regularly at University for my style and precision of writing, anyway. But the teachers at my secondary school were completely inept in pretty much all departments apart from Maths. I only have these English skills (you may disagree and consider my English to be poor, which is fair enough I suppose!) because I wanted to learn and knew I needed to teach myself more than anything.

The point of my post was that teachers don't have the skills to teach what they need to - you disagree with my post and yet go on to say that the teachers at your school were completely inept!

Children go to school to learn. That involves high quality teaching. Why bother sending children to school if you are advocating the idea of learning at home and teaching yourself?

I agree with you that some people are just lazy when it comes to basic grammar but there are bigger issues than that. People just are not taught these skills anymore.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

I said I disagreed "in a way". You are right, teaching standards are often crap. But you can have the best teachers in the world and it won't mean anything unless the pupils actually WANT to learn.

[Hannah]

I said I disagreed "in a way". You are right, teaching standards are often crap. But you can have the best teachers in the world and it won't mean anything unless the pupils actually WANT to learn.

Maybe if some teachers were not so boring then the children would be more engaged!

[unluckymorton]

The point of my post was that teachers don't have the skills to teach what they need to - you disagree with my post and yet go on to say that the teachers at your school were completely inept!

Children go to school to learn. That involves high quality teaching. Why bother sending children to school if you are advocating the idea of learning at home and teaching yourself?

I agree with you that some people are just lazy when it comes to basic grammar but there are bigger issues than that. People just are not taught these skills anymore.

People will only learn if they are prepared to work at it. I myself wasn't prepared to work at school and thought I knew better. I just wasn't interested. Although I have now done quite well for myself I have had to go the long way round. Yes I wish I had listened and learned more at school at the same time I would never knock anyone for being any less literate than myself or than anybody else.

[bazza]

I would never knock anyone for being any less literate than myself or than anybody else.

Neither will I.

Changing subject; back in the early seventies, a man who worked as a labourer, e.g. manual work for the council, told me he stammered in his speech because at school he was forced to write with his right hand when he was left-handed. I sympathised with him.

Another thing:- I dislike American expressions coming into the English language of UK. And the computer telling me to check the spelling by underlining the two words above "labourer" and "sympathised". SEE IT'S DONE IT AGAIN!!

[Guest Wen Y Hu]

Far from adopting a scholastic prose on this here forum, some basic grammar and spelling wouldn't go amiss (especially those old enough to know better!)

Yeah, kind of noticed that you get ever so slightly agitated on the language front, Topman. A debate on semantics in the early summer or so sticks in the mind... Have you studied linguistics or languages, by any chance?

I always try to do my best with grammar and spelling but I make as many mistakes as the next person. [...snip...] Without wanting to sound my own trumpet, I consider my English to be good/advanced in relation to most people my age. I'm certainly being commended regularly at University for my style and precision of writing, anyway. But the teachers at my secondary school were completely inept in pretty much all departments apart from Maths. I only have these English skills (you may disagree and consider my English to be poor, which is fair enough I suppose!) because I wanted to learn and knew I needed to teach myself more than anything. [...snip...]

Well, ADB, from what I have seen of your posts your writing style looks rather good - and certainly this is in evidence in your post here. I find it very sad that young people are leaving school ill-equipped to express themselves effectively and with precision when writing. My grandmother was born 100 years ago and was in the cotton mills before she was 14, yet even into her eighties she was able to write coherently and accurately - something that far too many of my students back in '90s Britain were not capable of. Hannah points to one of the problems when she says that "teachers don't have the skills to teach what they need to". Indeed, training the teachers themselves would be a good start, but it needs to be supported by a broader awareness in the community that society will benefit from such improved communication skills.

To go back to your point, ADB, whenever I have given advice to someone who has left school and is struggling with grammar and writing in general, it has always been to stop looking back at the failure (perceived or otherwise) of your school education to equip you, to not whinge, and to do what you have done: apply yourself to the task and learn. If people can find a teacher to guide them, that's the ideal, but otherwise there are so many books and other resources out there nowadays that progress can be made by self-study. (Do you have any self-study writing/grammar aids or reference books that you use? If I can remember to do it, I'll post a few useful books for all and sundry. Hopefully others will chip in with their own suggestions.)

[...snip...]

Another thing:- I dislike American expressions coming into the English language of UK. And the computer telling me to check the spelling by underlining the two words above "labourer" and "sympathised". SEE IT'S DONE IT AGAIN!!

British v American English!! I've got the odd one or two issues there, but, having said that, I'm pretty relaxed about it on the whole. More later, perhaps, on that.

Of more pressing concern for you, however, is that you shouldn't be subjected to your computer telling you how to spell in a way that you don't want to. All you need to do there is to change the dictionary that your applications use from the US one to the UK one. Simple.

Also, if you find the spellchecking function intrusive, just turn it off in the relevant settings panel. Similarly, turn off the grammar-checking function in MS-Word if it really bothers you. (One of the first things I do when I install MS-Word on a computer is to disable the spellchecking and grammar-checking functions along with most of the autocorrect functions. When you need to check your work for spelling and grammar errors, you can always run the command from the menu anyway.)

[Claytons Left Boot]

Another thing:- I dislike American expressions coming into the English language......

Back in 1969 my old English teacher at SMC told us that within 50 years the English and American languages would have grown so far apart that we would be unable to understand each other.

As it happens, not true, because we have simply adopted scores of their words and sayings due to tv, films, advertising slogans etc.

Can't be arsed going into it now but the one that really pi$$es me off is the use of Train Station instead of Railway Station.

[Amo]

Yeah, kind of noticed that you get ever so slightly agitated on the language front, Topman. A debate on semantics in the early summer or so sticks in the mind... Have you studied linguistics or languages, by any chance?

Well, I'm no Doctorate of the English language, and I don't mind the use of slang, but it's basic flubs like 'could of/have' and homophone errors that really bother me.

[Fife Rover]

The point of my post was that teachers don't have the skills to teach what they need to - you disagree with my post and yet go on to say that the teachers at your school were completely inept!

Children go to school to learn. That involves high quality teaching. Why bother sending children to school if you are advocating the idea of learning at home and teaching yourself?

I agree with you that some people are just lazy when it comes to basic grammar but there are bigger issues than that. People just are not taught these skills anymore.

That is the truth, but it does beg the question: why?

I remember having a lively discussion with the headmaster of Darwen Vale School sometime in the early '70s. I was asking him why my son (who was fairly intelligent) had such a shocking report in virtually every subject, and this was a constantly recurring theme. Added to which I knew by questioning my son that no action of any kind had ever been taken to remedy the problems. It was quite obviously just ignored and accepted by the staff at the school, so I decided to seek an interview with the Head.

Imagine my surprise when the Head told me that he was quite happy with this situation as it showed his instructions were being followed by the staff. He then proceeded to try and justify this by telling me it was his belief that it is far better for all pupils to enjoy the experience of attending school than to have them unhappy or behaving badly because they were being "driven too hard" (his words). I will not repeat here what I told him in reply to that, but it was words to the effect that the only thing he and his staff were interested in was making things as easy as possible for themselves so that THEY enjoyed the nice easy ride rather than the damned hard work of actually educating children!

[rebelmswar]

Just to point out something else about the new flock of students coming through the grinding mill of this generations system: the majority no longer learn how to write in a cursive form.

I am currently at Chapel Hill here in N.C. and on the syllabus in English classes it states how to format a paper written using only capital letters.

One has to make the first letter of a new sentence very large so they do not get counted off for incorrect punctuation.

[ABBEY]

tell all students BRONCOS ARE AT WEMBLEY AND IM PROMISED TICKETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[American]

Neither will I.

Changing subject; back in the early seventies, a man who worked as a labourer, e.g. manual work for the council, told me he stammered in his speech because at school he was forced to write with his right hand when he was left-handed. I sympathised with him.

Another thing:- I dislike American expressions coming into the English language of UK. And the computer telling me to check the spelling by underlining the two words above "labourer" and "sympathised". SEE IT'S DONE IT AGAIN!!

To be fair, the British English language used to use zs for words like sympathized. You're the ones who changed it, not us!!

[bazza]

To be fair, the British English language used to use zs for words like sympathized. You're the ones who changed it, not us!!

I do accept that as time moves on, both spoken and written language changes. I'm such a conservative (with a small c) that I loath change.