Hands Up!.... It's The Grammar Police

viv1969 said:
One may, however, consider the use of capital letters and full stops. :exit:
Click to expand...

in.dee.d , i.t is als.o Importa.nt to pu,t them in the r.ight plac.e ;)
 
My current irritation is the use of done, rather than did. Is it just me or does the phrase "I done this" really grate?

Maybe it is just an age related issue, I doubt there are many people under 25 adding complaints to this thread. If Internet forums had been in common use 30 or 40 years ago, no doubt there would be similar complaints about phrases that we consider to be "standard English". The young are no doubt laughing at our pedantry and viewing our comments as we would view Victorian phraseology.

A great thread, keep the comments coming.

Chris
 
I've done this , is acceptable - although some illiterate halfwit would probably render that as "I of done this" :bang:
 
JohnBradbury said:
The misuse of or failure to use an apostrophe — johns, john's
Click to expand...
Or the use of capital letters where appropriate. :D

Foxbat Flyer said:
. The young are no doubt laughing at our pedantry and viewing our comments as we would view Victorian phraseology.
A great thread, keep the comments coming.
Chris
Click to expand...
A very fayre point well precedented :D
 
big soft moose said:
Strictly speaking "10 or fewer items" as its the number which is fewer not the items
Click to expand...
I suspect that's codswallop as well. The quantitative phrase is "10 items". Doesn't matter how you state that quantity to then indicate a lower amount.
 
big soft moose said:
I've done this , is acceptable - although some illiterate halfwit would probably render that as "I of done this" :banghead:
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd consider that to be normal, but something like, "I done this yesterday when I was at work" is like fingernails down a board used for writing on with chalk.

I suppose it could be just our fine language evolving. I don't believe it is about point scoring or trying to appear more knowledgeable - I'm from Stoke and don't have a university education, so I have nothing to shout about - I just like to see English written in a way that does not take me a couple of attempts to understand what the author is trying to convey.

When writing, I aim to be clear and concise, rather than grammatically correct, I know I would not pass a modern language grammar test.

Chris
 
Nod said:
Breakfast can't technically be pluralised - once one has broken one's fast, a second morning meal cannot break it again. Maybe a second morning meal should be called a pulverisefast! Personally, when we meet the MiL in town for a coffee, I have one of Carluccio's almond croissants with my latté - if Mrs Nod and the MiL are lucky, I even let them have a (little) bit of it.
Click to expand...

Of course it can, all hobbits have second breakfast!
 
viv1969 said:
They don't need to. "10 items or less" is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day it depends on the customer base

Waitrose have "ten items or fewer"

Tesco, sainsbury, morrisons, and asda have "ten items or less"

I havent checked but based on the demographic i'd expect the bargain basement stores to have " ten items or like less innit ( thats like the numba you can count to an that without taking your socks off - recognise )"
 
big soft moose said:
At the end of the day it depends on the customer base

Waitrose have "ten items or fewer"

Tesco, sainsbury, morrisons, and asda have "ten items or less"

I havent checked but based on the demographic i'd expect the bargain basement stores to have " ten items or like less innit ( thats like the numba you can count to an that without taking your socks off - recognise )"
Click to expand...

How does a customer base affect whether something is grammatically correct or not?
It doesn't matter if you're in Costcutters or Fortnum & Mason.
 
Because those with an edcayshun are more likely to care whether you've dun it proppa an that, innit

so if you generally appeal to the chattering classes (like M&S and Waitrose etc) its prefferable for your sign to be grammatically correct as they will have a snit if its not and probably complain to your manager and write to the broadsheets

if on the other hand your customer base is principally thick , mouth breathing, benefit scroungers, they arent likely to notice your sign is wrong or like give a **** anyway - and theres better things to spend the money on like security guards and store detectives.

(that said i do remember seeing one of the girls in our local tesco last summer patiently explaining that two trolleys full of lager didnt really qualify as '10 items or less' regardless of the fact that "its like all the same stuff innit , so it counts as 1 yeah " )
 
big soft moose said:
Because those with an edcayshun are more likely to care whether you've dun it proppa an that, innit

so if you generally appeal to the chattering classes (like M&S and Waitrose etc) its prefferable for your sign to be grammatically correct as they will have a snit if its not and probably complain to your manager and write to the broadsheets

if on the other hand your customer base is principally thick , mouth breathing, benefit scroungers, they arent likely to notice your sign is wrong or like give a **** anyway - and theres better things to spend the money on like security guards and store detectives.

(that said i do remember seeing one of the girls in our local tesco last summer patiently explaining that two trolleys full of lager didnt really qualify as '10 items or less' regardless of the fact that "its like all the same stuff innit , so it counts as 1 yeah " )
Click to expand...
But "10 items or less" is grammatically fine. So is "fewer", but it sounds more clunky, so I'd say "less" was preferable.

The myth that "10 items or less" is wrong seems to come from people observing that fewer is only ever used for countables and leaping to the incorrect conclusion that you must only use fewer for countables.

That LanguageLog link above explains things quite nicely.
 
I quite happily shop in LIDL, Aldi, Asda, Sainsbury and Waitrose and Im not a mouth breather or a chattering class. I couldnt really giving a flying Fortnum whether it says less or fewer either.

Not Tesco though, got to draw the line somewhere what? Hwah hwah.
 
Yes but I don't agree with the language log argument - my view is that the correct form is to use fewer with a plural noun - items is a plural noun , ergo the correct for is ten or fewer items.

Even if we accepted that less was the right word to use - the correct for would be "less than 11 items" because the less/fewer aplies to the number not the item

if you write '10 items or less' - the question is less what ?

In some of their stores tesco have started avoiding this whole question by saying "up to 10 items"
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
Yes but I don't agree with the language log argument - my view is that the correct form is to use fewer with a plural noun - items is a plural noun , ergo the correct for is ten or fewer items.

Even if we accepted that less was the right word to use - the correct for would be "less than 11 items" because the less/fewer aplies to the number not the item

if you write '10 items or less' - the question is less what ?

In some of their stores tesco have started avoiding this whole question by saying "up to 10 items"
Click to expand...

 
big soft moose said:
Yes but I don't agree with the language log argument - my view is that the correct form is to use fewer with a plural noun - items is a plural noun , ergo the correct for is ten or fewer items.
Click to expand...
On what grounds?

big soft moose said:
Even if we accepted that less was the right word to use - the correct for would be "less than 10 items" because the less/fewer aplies to the number not the item

if you write '10 items or less' - the question is less what ?
Click to expand...
It's not, because the meaning is clear from the context. Sentences aren't constructed like mathematical operations.

And, indeed, "less than ten items" would be incorrect, because you can take through up to and including ten items. So you'd probably have to argue that they write "ten items or less than ten items", which is a horrendous sentence. Or "1-10 items" which is preferable, but still a little ugly. "Ten items or less". Simple. Rolls off the tongue. Feels concise. And nobody is ever confused over its meaning.
 
Out of respect for dorset's nap time, moving on from the less /fewer thing

another one that does my head in is "absolutely clear", or "very clear" - something is either clear or it isn't .

Likewise with razed to the ground (to the ground is unnecessary as its impossible to raze a building without reducing it to the ground) , or worse still when the granuiad writes it as "raised to the ground"

and the mis use of iconic some things are iconic, but an awful lot of things that are so described are not.

And possibly worst of all business speak like "low hanging fruit" "running it up the flag pole" " Horizon Scanning" "blue sky thinking" etc ( I once had a boss who would probably use all of those in a meeting - we used to play buzzword bingo , and a full house was quite likely )
 
ghoti said:
On what grounds?

And, indeed, "less than ten items" would be incorrect, because you can take through up to and including ten items. So you'd probably have to argue that they write "ten items or less than ten items", which is a horrendous sentence. Or "1-10 items" which is preferable, but still a little ugly. "Ten items or less". Simple. Rolls off the tongue. Feels concise. And nobody is ever confused over its meaning.
Click to expand...

on the grounds I put below the assertion, ie - fewer is the corect form for plural nouns, simple. (actually the meerkats thing simples is another one that does my nut in) - and less than x items would still be the form (if we were insistent on using "less") if you wanted to permit 10 items you'd say less /fewer than 11 items

That said my favorite would be "baskets only " which is both simple and unambiguous
 
big soft moose said:
Out of respect for dorset's nap time, moving on from the less /fewer thing)
Click to expand...
;)


And possibly worst of all business speak like "low hanging fruit" "running it up the flag pole" " Horizon Scanning" "blue sky thinking" etc ( I once had a boss who would probably use all of those in a meeting - we used to play buzzword bingo , and a full house was quite likely )
Click to expand...
Im with you on that. I see it a lot. The latest one's are "Going forward", "Traction", "Challenging year", "underlying performance", "key message".
For the last 14 years, every year has been a "challenging year" I believe. They've never said, dont worry chaps, we've cracked it this year.


big soft moose said:
That said my favorite would be "baskets only " which is both simple and unambiguous
Click to expand...
"Basket's only" surely? :exit:
 
Last edited:
DorsetDude said:
Im with you on that. I see it a lot. The latest one's are "Going forward", "Traction", "Challenging year", "underlying performance", "key message".
For the last 14 years, every year has been a "challenging year" I believe. They've never said, dont worry chaps, we've cracked it this year.
Click to expand...

The manager in question's favorite was " x is key, not to say pivotal" he used that so often we didnt even include it on the bingo chart as it was a given - other usual ones were " interfacing with key stakeholders " that is talking to customers , and "rigourously testing our offer" making sure we were doing the right thing.
 
big soft moose said:
The manager in question's favorite was " x is key, not to say pivotal" he used that so often we didnt even include it on the bingo chart as it was a given - other usual ones were " interfacing with key stakeholders " that is talking to customers , and "rigourously testing our offer" making sure we were doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a classic line on The Day Today : "Do you have an Armitage-Shanks defecation interface scenario or do you go for a s**t?"
 
Thanks for reminding me Moose.

Absolutely unique. AARRGGHHHHHHH! :runaway:
 
big soft moose said:
The manager in question's favorite was " x is key, not to say pivotal" he used that so often we didnt even include it on the bingo chart as it was a given - other usual ones were " interfacing with key stakeholders " that is talking to customers , and "rigourously testing our offer" making sure we were doing the right thing.
Click to expand...

"Ok, ive captured that. Lets take it offline"
 
Reasonable point - but thats just a cause for common sense on the part of the checkout staff , you can't sign for every eventuality
 
big soft moose said:
Reasonable point - but thats just a cause for common sense on the part of the checkout staff , you can't sign for every eventuality
Click to expand...
It could work,
"Baskets only" well that is, unless you need to use a trolley as a walking aid.
Please have your blue badge ready for inspection at the check out.
<Oh wait a minute its in the car>

And then printed in half a dozen different language's as well. (y)
 
Need to add just a tiny bit more text to Chris's sign:

"Baskets only" well that is, unless you need to use a trolley as a walking aid, or you have only one item and it's too large for a basket so you've put it in a trolley"
 
This isn't quite a grammar issue, but it's something that irks me: the notion that all decisions are "tough". Barely a day goes by without some politician wittering on about "tough decisions" that have to be made. Grrrr!
 
I expect some people will argue against me on this one but I don't think try and is correct.

e.g. try and take a photograph. It should be try to take a photograph.



Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top