I'm trying to understand the definitions of lose, loose, chose and choose. Are the definitions different between the UK and USA?
I know them as
Lose {Have something taken away or lost}
Loose {Not firmly attached}
Chose {Past tense of Choose}
Choose {Decide from among a collection of objects / make a deliberate decision}
I see the misuse of these words often based on my perception of their definitions
Carson
Problems with -ose and -oose words
One of the problems in some American dialects is that the difference in pronunciation between loose and lose has been -- well, lost. :) In some Eastern and Mid-western urban dialects they are both pronounced "looz", and in other nearby dialects, they are both pronounced "loos", so some Americans get confused as to which is which, and not just people from the area where the sound change of s to z or z to s happened.
This confusion spread to the chose-choose pair even though the difference between those two is in the vowel instead of the consonant.
It's kind of like British dialects that drop aitches from some words and add them where they don't belong. :) Or the Boston accent that says pahk the cah in hahvahd yahd, leaving out all the r's but then says Cuber for that island south of Florida. Makes no sense at all. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
oooh, good answer!
that explains a heck of a lot! I had never thought of it in terms of pronunciation.
i wonder whether the trend to "whole word" teaching of spelling over the older "phonics" method has an impact on this?
not as think as i smart i am
Phonics probably does have a
Phonics probably does have a problem with it. But the definitions you have in your post are correct for the words listed.
looz
loos
chOHz
chOUz
Those are the pronunciations I know those words by.
----
May the Stars Light Your Path
Maid Joy
http://i-know-i-know-but.net/
It's just accent, not mistakes...
The alphabet is a code that references language, not a language of its own.
Almost everyone does this sort of thing in some situations.
The word "palm" and "calm" have an "L" in them, but for many people, there is no "L" sound. The letter is just there to indicate a particular quality of sound that's entirely dependent on the local accent.
English has no letter that indicates a glottal stop, yet English speakers know where to put them.
A nice man.
An ice man.
In some English accents, an "R" sound is used where other English speakers would use a glottal stop.
The idea of freedom is hard to fear.
The idear of freedom is hahd to feah.
So the British, at least those fluent in Received Pronunciation, tend to spell a verbal pause in speech as "erm," where an American might spell more or less the same sound as "um."
So English has a word, juggernaut, which more or less accurately transcribes in the accent of the Midlands and the east of Britain the Sanskrit Jagganath, but which is "ignorantly" pronounced with a "R" sound by those not familiar with these particular transliteration codes.
So we have two words, "bass" and "perch," for what was originally the same fish, the first spelling originally "barse," but the "R" was lost in an era of indifferent spelling skills, so now all the proud "rhotic" English speakers drop the "R" just like the non-rhotic speakers. It doesn't pay to be smug when it comes to English, as all of us can be made into figures of fun.
English has no velar fricative, like Scots "loch," yet we have no trouble producing them when we *know* they're there.
Hugh Laurie.
Hug Laurie.
Why does a trailing "H" change the initial *and* the final sounds? Do we *pronounce* it? No. It's just a code.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
there is no difference
here is no difference in the use of the words you reference between the us and uk. unfortunately, there are many people who either don't understand english in either tongue, or don't care to find out.
there are big differences between uk and us spelling. behaviour vs behavior, aluminium vs aluminum, etc. but they don't interfere with comprehension the way adding an "o" to "lose" does.
oh, but if we could cut the "o" loose from a word, what would we have lost? ;)
not as think as i smart i am
Indeed
Very true. There is, and should be, no difference. In Canada we tend to follow the British spelling for almost everything, however I find there are a lot of Canadians that have started adopting the American way of spelling, like dropping the "u" from "colour"! We have to take English from grade 1 through to grade 11 or 12, you'd think after eleven years of English classes, and probably eighteen or so years of actually speaking the language, people would have a firmer grip on the language!
Cut the O loose
Like "noose" and "nose?" Many a condemned prisoner would prefer a nose around to a noose around.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Yes, they are often misused...
...often based on over-correction.
They have the same meaning everywhere.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Thank you for your comments.
Thank you for your comments.
For the life of me I don't understand why this error stands out to me. I can see the oos ooz possibility but it doesn't change my head because I see the difference. Guess I am stuck tripping over the occasional pop ups and will grin and move on. It certainly doesn't impact the story because I know what the author meant but I have to chuckle when I read "I had gone through the torture of loosing my parents in a sudden and horrific accident." :)
huggs
Carson
word usage
After twenty-five years of college teaching I've seen all of the mistakes listed (even in MBA classes). Several students use "there" for all versions (their and they're), because they are lazy or because they believe in spell check. My son had an intern working for him at a newspaper and discovered that an article about the municipal opera rearranging seating included the phrase "Municipal Opera rearranges their isles". When he pointed out the mistake, he was told "But it got through spell check"
Volkswriter and homonyms
The very first computer program I ever bought was call "Volkswriter" - must have been early eighties - and with it you could push a button and it would highlight every conceivable homonym mistake in a document. Mousing over the item would give its definition and tell you the associated word(s) (maybe you had to click on it). The list was easy two edit to; too do that you just hit a function key and deleted items that did not give you problems (I took off the too/to/two thing because that is about the only one I don't have trouble with (those were a joke!))
I don't remember it having trouble with cut and paste functions, or its dictionary being a problem either. It really did everything I wanted it to, and I think all the things that I do with word processors now. I have a list of homonyms I (always intend) to check for in what I write, but it befuddles me why none of the current programs have that feature.
Homonym Checkers
There was a Microsoft Word Add-in some years ago, but I see their web site has disappeared, so I suspect they didn't do all that well.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I have to agree
Yes There (Their and They're) Where (Were) To (To and Two) Lets (Let's) Your (You're) all distract me while I am reading. I could add commas in front of or after (Then, That and And) or starting a new sentence with And.
I was trying to choose the error that seemed to happen when I read stories by writers from the UK but I must admit I have also seen the errors committed by writers from the US too.
What prompted me to ask the question was the difference between the interpretation of Jumper by the US and UK . {a dress in the US a sweater in the UK)
Hugs
Carson
I know that I try to avoid
I know that I try to avoid starting prose sentences with "and," but make no effort at all to keep it out of dialogue, because despite the MLA rules, people do speak that way.
I will say that I know the difference between their, there and they're but getting myself to type them correctly is another matter. Spell checker does not catch these mistakes. I have found that when I re-read my own writing to proofread my mind sees what it expects to see, not necessarily what is actually on the page. I find this especially true when I am reading on screen instead of a printed page.
That is why it is always good to have another editor read for you, when you can.
Hugs,
Kristy
Three cheers for 'and'.
I am quite addicted to using 'and' as a sentence starter. When in full flood and feeling particularly ebullient I use it at the beginning of paragraphs as well.
This is no slip shod, casual, off hand affectation. Nor yet symptomatic of a callow rebellious youth who wishes to cock a snook at her elders and betters by trampling on their dearly held beliefs. Nor does it betray a contempt for education or a sad deprivation of such in my formative years.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I do it gravely, after much thought, and in full awareness of the consequences. I regard it as a useful tool in my armoury.
Sometimes it works for me.
An example? Well I use it to start the very last paragraph of 'The Old Alhambra' and I think that ending would be weaker without it.
But then I use it a lot. Perhaps too much. But the what harm can it possibly do? It is not as if some people might not understand it, or might misconstrue its meaning surely? The virtues of clarity are safe in its hands.
I urge everyone to use it! Perhaps not all the time. But just when it seems to add something to what they are trying to say.
Hugs,
Jumpers
They're both generalisations of a style of clothing without buttons, and both extended beyond the original meaning, a short jacket or outer covering worn by sailors and workmen. The woman's dress is usually worn over a blouse or other garment, just as as a knitted pullover jumper as worn by fishermen is a sort of jacket. The same general idea of a sort of "looseness" and "overness" leads to the word pinafore (which is theoretically open in the back, since it's a type of apron) being used in the UK to describe the type of women's pullover dress usually called a jumper in the USA, but can also be called a pinafore, especially if it has lace trimming.
We all of us use language creatively, and are constantly exploring new metaphors to make our language fresh. Public entertainers like Chelsea Handler contribute some (coslopus), some are made up by authors (replicant - David Peoples in the screenplay for Blade Runner), but most are made up by perfectly ordinary people, who say things like "excessorize" or "plutoed" to mean something new, but clever enough that people can figure out what it means. We're most of us amused by wordplay, which is why we attend to comedians.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
In the UK
A jumper is a pullover or sweater for either sex. The dress here is a pinafore dress.
Angharad
Angharad
Jumper ...
The 'square rig' Royal Navy uniform is a serge jumper (with no fastening when I wore one in the 50s) with a broad collar hanging at the back and covered by the linen collar with 3 white stripes on its edge (actually the way this collar fits with tapes makes it almost like a bra :) ). The jumper is worn over a knitted wool jersey in Winter and a 'white front' (short sleeved square-necked shirt) in Summer. Plus the bell-bottom trousers which attracted me to the Naval section of the CCF (Combined cadet Force) in the first place :)
Another confusion that seems confined to US accented English speakers is that between 'then' and 'than'. I suspect that this is because they are pronounced similarly in the US because it's not something I've come across on this side of the pond. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Robi
Then / Than
The confusion is very old, extending all the way back to Middle English, when they were more or less the same word, something like the discrete/discreet dichotomy. In some dialects (by no means all) they tend to merge in sound, sometimes toward a muddy sort of schwa sound in casual speech. Both uses of the original word involve a sort of ordering: I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
If only ...
... your last sentence had any basis in reality. In real life it would be written -"I was so much younger then; I'm older than that now." :)
I know nothing of Middle English, just Midlands English but I've not come across any confusion over here. Though that doesn't mean it never happens, of course. They seem quite different to me. 'Than' implies a comparison and 'then' has a temporal quality. eg "If x is cheaper than Y then buy X" or "Jane went to the Post Office for a stamp and then posted her letter." I don't know, perhaps I'm wrong; it has been known to happen.
Robi
Reality-based examples
Actually, that's a direct quote from Bob Dylan's song, My Back Pages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ni-xZDkV7Q
It was a private joke, I'm sure. I'm fond of music, and remember the damnedest things.
They really were the same word in Middle English. You'll note that your example: "If x is cheaper than Y then buy X" mark the two halves of a logical choice with one version of then/then marking the hypothesis: Cheap(X) and the other the conditional conclusion: Buy(X). So the English sentence can be expressed: Cheap(X) → Buy(X)
It's not necessarily a temporal relationship that "then" implies, but a logical one which appears to be temporal because we're used to the normal direction of the arrow of time.
We can also see that most uses of "than" imply some sort of "then," at least by begging the question.
A: I'm older than you.
B: So what?
Q: If time is running backwards then I'll say "first" first.
It's entirely true that we've developed the words in different directions, so the distinction is quite clear now, but our Middle English-speaking predecessors weren't total idiots either. They were just dealing with subtle concepts of predicate logic before predicate logic was widely understood.
Cheers,
Puddin'
Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt somehow
Ahh, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now
--- Bob Dylan
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
word confusion
The one that always makes me pause and stop reading is 'cloths' vs 'clothes' cloths = a group of small square absorbent fabric used for cleaning/mopping. Clothes = clothing. What you wear.
Another one that catches me is Draw vs Drawer this is a regionalism. Both are interchangeable and describe a box with a front and handle that slides into a piece of furniture to hold things.
Where I come from (western canada) we say "Drawer" and "Chest of Drawers" or "Dresser Drawers" while in the east increasingly so as you go south and east... they mainly say "Draw"
Or at least that's my observation about where it changes.
nobody.
Interesting
As an English woman, somewhat passionate about the use of the English language, I have frequently bemoaned what I have seen as misuse of it. Simple grammatical errors, and an unrealistic assumption that computer spell-checkers will mask laziness, still have me fuming. To my mind, there is no excuse for misuse of "their, they're and there".
I have long agreed with the idea that America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language. I am, however, coming around to the view that, in many cases, American English and the spelling thereof, makes more sense.
For example; Americans often talk about a sidewalk as being the walkway alongside a road. We British will talk about a pavement but, with the increasing use of tarmac as a surface, such a generalisation is unreasonable. A pavement should be paved with paving slabs or some similar item. In this instance, I believe the American term to be more correct.
Then there is the matter of spelling. It appears to me that Americans often spell a word how it sounds; the British will usually spell a word based on how it is derived. We may view our spelling as more correct, but modern sense is often better served by a different spelling.
In British English, draw is a verb - e.g. to produce a drawing; drawer is a box with a handle, which fits into a piece of furniture. Choose and Lose are verbs; Chose (the past simple of Choose) is a choice made in the past and Loose (adjective) is something unattached. The fact that Choose and Lose have identical pronunciation but different spelling just goes to prove that British English often has rules that are made to be broken.
English, as a language, is constantly evolving. We may well find, in the future, that much of what is presently perceived as misuse, is merely the process of natural evolution and will be accepted into common parlance. This is seen nowadays as, in many of our English dictionaries, some words have American spelling as a valid alternative.
I can enjoy a story written in American English. A good plot, writing and use of language, will always attract my attention.
Susie
Just some random trivia.
Lately, in my home city the trend was to actually pave the sidewalks with carefully arranged bricks. It looks nice, is easy on the legs, and, incidentally, transforms sidewalks into pavements ^_^
Of course, the whole point is moot, since they are still called the same in my language. Тротуар is a тротуар nature of its surface notwithstanding.
And all these patterns are used.
Faraway
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
Sometimes....
>> It appears to me that Americans often spell a word how it sounds; the British will usually spell a word based on how it is derived.
Not always. One of the common differences, "honour" versus "honor," is actually a Norman French affectation, originating with William the Conqueror and his buddies, who invented the -our ending to remind the peasants that they pronounced things the way the French did, despite the fact that the French didn't spell them that way at all.
The real French "Honor" is still preserved in British English only in the (mostly female) name, Honor, but the sturdy English "honor" was "frenchified" with an extra vowel that didn't reflect English at all, and only an imaginary French.
Likewise, a lot of Greek words were (much later) frenchified by spelling them in -ise, so Greek-derived organize, recognize, and realize (still preferred by the punctilious Oxford English Dictionary) became pseudo-French organise, recognise, and realise.
So "American" -ize is actually not an "Americanism," but the literate alternative to lower-class British pandering to the French as arbiters of culture.
Well, not really. Spellings are just codes. Sometimes they retain useful information, like the useful distinction between vice (a sin) and vise (a tool) an American habit, or story (a tale) and storey (a level in a building), a British habit. Sometimes they don't -- grey versus gray.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Honour and time.
I have just been reading Castle Rackrent which was written at the end of the 18th century. Prior to that I read a couple of contemporary accounts of the Peninsular War which of course dates from roughly the same time. In both of them is honour spelt 'honor'. Admittedly in the first the narrator is Irish of a fairly lowly estate, but the authoress was of well born Anglo Irish stock. In the second the letters were often written by both officers of good education familiar with Latin and Greek or rank and file of mixed antecedents although evidently literate. The honor spelling was also used by the Duke of Wellington in his correspondence with the War Ministry and various politicians of note. Well presumably it was as although the original documents were not replicated there would be no cause to alter text just for the hell of it.
So maybe there was a window when the spelling reverted to the simpler form. Or maybe the two forms co-existed for decades, centuries even.
Personally I shall stick to 'honour'. To my eyes it looks a more weighty, more serious, even more worthy concept in its longer form. Honor begs to be trifled with, but besmirch honour at your peril.
Hugs,
>> Or maybe the two forms co-existed for decades, centuries even
Indeed. The word is used in the US Declaration of Independence, in which it's spelt "honor," but it's spelt "honour" in Thomas Jefferson's notes and rough draft, so it was probably a copyist's error rather than a bold statement of spelling independence. Jefferson was an educated man, so spelt generally as educated people did in England.
The British are also inconsistent, though. Emperor was spelt Emperour in Johnson's dictionary, as well as errour, governour, horrour, tenour, terrour, and tremour, spellings which might give the most ardent anglophile pause. Perhaps due to the influence of the name Honor, the British were roughly evenly divided between the two spellings until the end of the 17th century. Some suffixed versions of the word are still, in fact, usually spelt without the "U," honorific, vigorous, humorous, laborious, invigorate, and so on.
On the other hand, the Americans retain the "U" in glamour, paramour, and a few other words, and (oddly enough) often revisit "honour" on wedding invitations, perhaps thinking that this is the more formal spelling, as many people who might spell "through" as "thru" in casual correspondence might be careful to spell the word out in full, correctly, when "it counts."
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
U and Non U ...
(... With apologies to Nancy Mitford.)
You are on the side of the angels and, perhaps more authoratively, Fowler. To quote -
"Those who are willing to put national prejudice aside and examine the facts soons realise, first, that the British -our words are much fewer in proportion to the -or words that they supposed and, secondly, that there seems to be no discoverable line between the two sets so based on principle as to serve any useful purpose. By the side of favour there is horror, besides ardour pallor, beside odour tremor and so forth."
There is much more in this vein.
But I still thinks it looks better. Which just goes to show what slaves we are to familiarity.
U and non-U
Personally, I'm in favour of spelling conventions that make the contour of words distinctive, and against anything that tends toward sameness, because it makes reading more difficult. We recognise, once fully literate, words and phrases by their overall shape, not by sounding out the individual letters, so am an enthusiast for difference.
The fact that "threw" and "through" are quite different in appearance, despite a similarity of sound, is a source of considerable pleasure to me, even without considering the historical context of etymology and recognition of the path the word has traced.
Most spelling "reformers" are agents of chaos and entropy, and I spurn their enterprise as folly and madness in fancy dress.
Literate people are conservative, because literature is ancient, and only the young and foolish are willing to throw away beauty and lineage in favour of some spurious "logic."
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Draw / Drawer
They're exactly the same in American English but the final "er" disappears in some non-rhotic dialects, and the speakers of those dialects -- Eastern New England and a few other enclaves like the Tidewater region of Virginia -- are sometimes fooled into misspelling the word "drawer" as "draw" simply because they don't say it that way. This is a natural process in every language. We see it happening before our eyes in the casual "nite" for "night," for only one example, because we no longer pronounce the "gh" in night, which used to be quite distinct, as it still is in German "Nacht."
The UK has the same distinctions, although they're disappearing to some extent. The West Country is rhotic, and big chunks of Scotland used to be, but "R's" are disappearing as the language becomes homogenised all over, just as they are in the USA and Canada but in the opposite direction. We see the difference in daily usage. A UK writer might set down "erm" for a schwa sound followed by an "M" sound, where an American or Canadian would be much more likely to set down "um." It's pretty much the same sound though.
We see the same thing in the English word Juggernaut, which represents the British attempt to set down the Sanskrit Jagganath, with no "R" sound in either one, at least in Received Pronunciation. The Americans and Canadians tend to pronounce the "R" in Juggernaut, which is completely silly, if we look to the original word. We ought to be spelling it "Jugganaut," but spelling (quite rightly) takes a long time to catch up to pronunciation.
The differences between "British" and "American" pronunciation actually came from what's now the UK and Ireland, because English-speaking immigrants came mainly from the edges of the British Isles, not the centre. Some modern accents in and around Cardiff, for example, might almost be California accents, and we can hear a trace of Scotland in Western Canadian accents, although we're fairly close, both rhotic, with the only strong difference between California and Vancouver the difference between the California and Canadian pronunciations of "about," and similar words. I worked up in Edmonton, Alberta, for CN, the Canadian Railway for a year or so, and after the first week or two wasn't readily distinguishable from the natives, except that the real Canadians would prance around half-naked in the snow, where I was wearing heavy coats with shawls, fur hats, and mittens in the balmy sub-zero weather. We humans are flexible, for the most part, and we quickly adapt to our surroundings, because we shape our speech based on what we hear around us. I never got used, on the other hand, to plugging in my car to prevent the oil in the engine block from freezing solid. They have electrical outlets in the parking lots dedicated to that purpose, and on the streets in all the shopping districts.
Now that's wack.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
you worked here in Edmonton?
yes, we have to plug in our cars, or they will freeze solid in winter. its what happens when it can get 40 below C or colder, giggle.
Can't help but think of
A certain spoofy picture that different things need different sources of energy. In there, a cartoonish dog is shown with a bone and meat, and a person is imagining a car that has a hose in the front that looks like car is drinking through the straw! ^_^
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
Faraway
Big Closet Top Shelf
Where you can fool around like you want to and most you get is some bemused good ribbing!
Edmonton
I did. Visited the best part of the Canadian Submarine Navy in the Mall, froze my bones in the winter, not so bad the rest of the year, visited Saskatoon and all the handy local sights, talked "aboot*" loonies in the markets, and generally pretended to be a Canadian, so as not to become the target of the odd resentful frown. (Canadians are mostly far too polite to say anything untoward) On the plains, people mostly thought I was from Vancouver**. The first few times I walked by a car fitted with a remote start apparatus and it started by itself it gave me quite a turn, but soon enough I was blasé like everyone else. I quite liked daylight headlights, though, and have the same fitted to my own car (a Subaru Forester) and I got to drive a train once. Very cool. Noisy as the very devil. One has to wear ear protection. And the sanitary facilities leave a lot to be desired. They made me buy fancy steel-toe boots, certified for CN, which cost about Canadian$300, so the ride wasn't exactly gratis. Well worth it, though, and I still have the boots, just in case I'm ever invited on another train ride.
Cheers,
Puddin'
* Yes, that's a gross exaggeration and distortion of the actual sound.
** Northern California people and Vancouver people share at certain sloppiness in pronouncing "t" in certain contexts, like "Here's looking at you, kid."
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
More misuse
or misspelling I should say. I just read a story where "quiet" was spelled "quite". I include this with "lose", "loose", "choose", "chose". To me, they all seem like mispellings of the word, not misuse of the definitions. The authors use them in the right context but, like what has been mentioned before, spellcheck does not cover these mistakes. I don't consider myself an expert of the English language. I was born on the south side of Chicago, Illinois (USA) where "deez", "dem", & "Dohs" replaces "these, "them" & "those". How I pronounce (dohs) words verbally does not affect how I spell(dem). (Deez) misspellings do cause you to pause & interrupt the flow of a story.
Lisa
lisaloren
Typos will happen
and like stupidity will always be with us. Writers who post here are of different cultures and educational backgrounds. As long as I can read without it being too much hard work, I'll continue to enjoy the efforts of others, but I do exhort writers to have a proofer or editor, it makes such a difference and helps to avoid some of the pit falls or even prat falls, which are awaiting those of us with big enough egos to post our efforts.
Another of the US v UK is, then and than which I suspect is a pronunciation thing.
I would also ask for reasonable use of paragraphs, one block is such hard work to read, if it includes loads of poor spelling, then even I will give up and find something less challenging to read.
Angharad
Angharad
USage
The then/than thing is another pronunciation-based error of usage, proper American usage is the same as proper British but in the same cities where loose and lose are pronounced the same, so are then and than. Americans do seem to be less afraid of spelling errors than equivalently educated British writers. :) Or less willing and able to seek the help of proofreaders and copy editors.
On the other hand, in the San Francisco Bay area, "to" is pronounced "tu" where "too" is pronounced "tyu". So that homophonic pair is defused but SF pronunciation is ambiguously defined for "two". :) In Los Angeles, for a third hand, "to" and many other short unaccented words are tending to have the vowels replaced by really, really short schwa noises. That's already happened in New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Providence and many other eastern cities.
Phoenix seems to have caught the midwestern vowel shift where some front vowels become nasalized dipthongs and back vowels shift to the front. A Phoenix accent sounds as if a West Texas cheerleader had kids by a Milwaukee cheesehead. :)
This stuff fascinates me. :)
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Can we really let pronunciation allow the mistakes?
Pronunciation is part of the battle but not the blanket behind which a writer can hide to cover their sins of grammar. They need to put a little effort into their work beyond dropping the spelling that first comes to mind. Than and then, are more than just two words that are misused by being interchanged by writers that don’t take the time understand their definitions. That is what it breaks down to when they use the wrong one. No I am not bashing the authors or calling them lazy. What I think the issue might be is that the writer allows their desire to complete a work override the nagging questions of the words they used.
Often I find myself question “how do I spell that?†and then throw down a word that sounds like the one I want to use. Only to have the nagging question “Is that spelled right?†linger in my mind. I then consult Microsoft’s spellchecker, the online and Microsoft dictionaries and thesaurus. I also have three different grammar books on my desk that I reference and that is just for starters. All because of that nagging insecurity question over the word I used.
I realize this may seem excessive but as a teacher I need to affirm that I am using the language correctly. It is embarrassing to write something for the students and have them correct it for the whole class to hear. Then I must correct the mistake and not get flustered in order to complete the lesson plan. Fortunately I don’t make as many mistakes as I used to.
I use three different grammar books because I sometimes don’t feel I understand one of the presentations. Also since I had to purchase them for different classes I took. So I make use of them.
In the end it’s up to the writer how much effort they are going to put into their work. It’s great to get to read the works that are produced even with the errors. So in the end I am not complaining even though I would rather the writer used a proof reader or two. Maybe learn from what they find out from the proofer. I’d be more disappointed missing out on a story than reading one that was error free.
Hugs
Carson
To, too, two...
I grew up in the SF Bay Area, and one often hears "to" with an unstressed vowel, but "too" and "two" are sometimes quite distinct, as Erin mentioned, although the difference is often very difficult to hear, at least in casual speech.
So the dialogue snippet:
"Me too!"
"Me three!"
is neither incomprehensible nor unfunny.
On the other hand, I spent almost all my spare time from about the age of fourteen or fifteen in amateur dramas and theatre classes, and worked in the professional theatre for many years, so I can barely remember what my own "native" accent sounds like, except as a study.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I came across this thread
I came across this thread when I stopped reading a story after, very early in the dialogue, I read "Your to big"
So...some simple rules (I am actually a linguist, so putting myself into lecture mode here.)
Not intending to be patronising, just recognising that some folk who have stories they need to tell may not have had the benefits that I have enjoyed, nor the great teachers.
'You are' abbreviates into 'you're', not 'your'
'Your' is the possessive, as iin "You're driving your car"
'There' is a place, 'they're' is 'they are' and 'their' is the possessive, as in "They're over there, driving their car"
'It is' and 'it has' abbreviate into 'it's', as in 'it's a nice day'
'Its' is the possessive of 'it', as in "it's a red car, its colour is red"
'To' is used as a preposition and as part of the infinitive, as in "to drive a car to Wales"
'Too' is used as a modifier or to signify an addition; "You're too big too"
The treiglad meddal is used when a feminine noun follows the definite article....oops, that's Welsh.
Faraway...so you use the French word (trottoir) for a pavement? Interesting!
Thank you all so very much
I suspect, Carson, that you may not have expected your little post to generate so much discussion. Thank you for starting us on this trail. It will, I hope, help us all to improve our writing, for the benefit of authors and readers alike.
I found the whole thing quite fascinating and it's true that you can learn something new every day, especially from comments by writers of the calibre of Puddin' and Fleurie.
I don't claim, by any means, to be the arbiter of good English usage and am always prepared to learn. For the most part, I am happy to consult a good editor as I find that, although the road can be quite bumpy, the end definitely justifies the means.
Susie
More than surprised
I have to admit that when I started this forum I wasn’t expecting to generate so many comments. I never dreamed that this little irritation I was having was shared by so many.
Again I thank you all for participating in the feedback to such a little post.
Hugs
Carson
There are more traps, you know...
...that are common to both variations of the language. Here's a case in point (author anonymous):
The English Lesson
We'll begin with box, and the plural is boxes, But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese, Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice, But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men, Why shouldn't the plural of pan be pen?
The cow in the plural may be cows or kine, But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.
And I speak of a foot, and you show me your feet, But I give a boot... would a pair be beet?
If one is a tooth, and a whole set is teeth, Why shouldn't the plural of booth be beeth?
If the singular is this, and the plural is these, Why shouldn't the plural of kiss be kese?
Then one may be that, and three be those, Yet the plural of hat would never be hose.
We speak of a brother, and also of brethren, But though we say mother, we never say methren.
The masculine pronouns are he, his and him, But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim.
So our English, I think you will agree, Is the trickiest language you ever did see.
I take it you already know, of tough, and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you, on hiccough, through, slough and though.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps, To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word, That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead! For goodness sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat, (They rhyme with suite and straight and debt)
A moth is not a moth in mother, Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there, Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there's dose and rose and lose – Just look them up – and goose and choose,
And cork and work and card and ward, And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go, then thwart and cart. Come, come, I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language: Why, man alive, I'd learned to talk when I was five.
And yet to write it, the more I sigh, I'll not learn how 'til the day I die.
And there's more (also courtesy of A. Nonny Mouse)!
Let's face it - English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England. We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square, and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? We ship by truck but send cargo by ship.
We have noses that run and feet that smell. We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and in which an alarm goes off by going on.
And, in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother's not Mop?
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
And don't rely on spell check!
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
It's rare lea ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
It's letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
>> English muffins weren't invented in England
Well, only in the sense that they were called simply "muffins." The USA has several varieties of muffins available, including many baked in "muffin" tins or pans, a set of moulds used to help form neat muffins, which may be made with either leavened flour or corn meal, and what we call the English variety, which are typically unsweetened, although any form of muffin can be made with either sweet, savoury, or relatively neutral flavours.
Do you know the muffin man
And don't you know his name?
Do you know the muffin man,
That lives in Drury Lane?
Certainly a British tune, and Jane Austin wrote about it.
Everybody calls things by different names, depending on where they live. In Denmark, they call "Danish Pastries" "Weinerbrøt" (Viennese Bread), and the technique of layering dough by repetitive folding probably came from the Ottoman Empire.
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style