Help With Grammar

[GlennB]

I do find that rather distracting. "An herb" works when pronounced as most people who talk about herbs are likely to pronounce it, but "an hospital" doesn't make sense. Who says "ospital"? Do I need to get out more?

Yes. The typical US pronunciation of herb doesn't win by a popularity vote if you then wish to apply so-called logic to the pronunciation of hospital.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are most people who talk about herbs really American? That seems odd. I suppose some Jamaicans and East End Londoners would drop the H as well.

Well, most people I hear talk about them are American. Actually, I'd just forgotten that this was another point where we depart.

Which has me wonder about "hospital", do you drop the "h" on that one? I know there are differences on how we describe one admitted, in that we would say "Rat is in the hospital" whereas I hear "Rat is in hospital" more often from your side of the pond, and down under, IIRC.

Two countries divided by a common language.

 

[GlennB]

Which has me wonder about "hospital", do you drop the "h" on that one? I know there are differences on how we describe one admitted, in that we would say "Rat is in the hospital" whereas I hear "Rat is in hospital" more often from your side of the pond, and down under, IIRC.

This runs deep.

"Rat is in hospital" is a generic statement where we don't necessarily know which hospital. He's just ill or injured and the particular hospital isn't important.

"Rat is in the hospital" suggests we know which one.

"Rat's in 'ospital!" is very plausible UKspeak, but suggests the speaker is a little lax with their English, like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This runs deep.

Well, so long as we don't insult anyone that should be OK.

"Rat's in 'ospital!" is very plausible UKspeak, but suggests the speaker is a little lax with their English, like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

Now you've done it!

 

[azzthom]

Personally, I subscribe to the view expressed by Stephen Fry on a number of occasions: Usage is the final arbiter. Language goes through fads, trends and fashions on a regular basis. The meaning of words changes - through usage. Slang is the most obvious example of this. The same applies, albeit less obviously, to grammar.

The rules of grammar, punctuation and even spelling exist for one reason alone. To clarify meaning. If the way an individual says something makes what they are saying easier to understand, then they have used the language correctly. It doesn't matter how many rules have been broken, only that the meaning of what was said is clearer.

The example of the 'split infinitive' is an excellent example of the grammar nazis getting it wrong. An earlier poster said that the 'split infinitive' was made up. It's actually worse than that. It was part of an attempt to impose the rules of Latin grammar upon the English language. It failed miserably. IMHO, the only reason anyone still thinks it's a 'rule' is because of the famous example from 'Star Trek'.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

This runs deep.

"Rat is in hospital" is a generic statement where we don't necessarily know which hospital. He's just ill or injured and the particular hospital isn't important.

"Rat is in the hospital" suggests we know which one.

"Rat's in 'ospital!" is very plausible UKspeak, but suggests the speaker is a little lax with their English, like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

If you said "Rat's in the hospital" and leave out the ' : that would disturb a lot of people.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Personally, I subscribe to the view expressed by Stephen Fry on a number of occasions: Usage is the final arbiter. Language goes through fads, trends and fashions on a regular basis. The meaning of words changes - through usage. Slang is the most obvious example of this. The same applies, albeit less obviously, to grammar.

The rules of grammar, punctuation and even spelling exist for one reason alone. To clarify meaning. If the way an individual says something makes what they are saying easier to understand, then they have used the language correctly. It doesn't matter how many rules have been broken, only that the meaning of what was said is clearer.

The example of the 'split infinitive' is an excellent example of the grammar nazis getting it wrong. An earlier poster said that the 'split infinitive' was made up. It's actually worse than that. It was part of an attempt to impose the rules of Latin grammar upon the English language. It failed miserably. IMHO, the only reason anyone still thinks it's a 'rule' is because of the famous example from 'Star Trek'.

<<<The meaning of words changes - through usage. Slang is the most obvious example of this. The same applies, albeit less obviously, to grammar.>>>
I heard a fellow from UK refer to another as a "Dick" as in a mean person. I know this has been an Americanism for many years. How about in the UK?

 

[azzthom]

<<<The meaning of words changes - through usage. Slang is the most obvious example of this. The same applies, albeit less obviously, to grammar.>>>
I heard a fellow from UK refer to another as a "Dick" as in a mean person. I know this has been an Americanism for many years. How about in the UK?

It's not uncommon. I think it would have been assimilated into our slang very quickly and easily because it was already a slang term for the male genitalia and, with the suffix 'head', as an insult. The specific meaning of a mean, arrogant and/or selfish person is more recent so I suspect it arrived here via US TV shows and films.

 

[angrysoba]

Personally, I subscribe to the view expressed by Stephen Fry on a number of occasions: Usage is the final arbiter. Language goes through fads, trends and fashions on a regular basis. The meaning of words changes - through usage. Slang is the most obvious example of this. The same applies, albeit less obviously, to grammar.

Yes, but usage is not the same as the following...

The rules of grammar, punctuation and even spelling exist for one reason alone. To clarify meaning. If the way an individual says something makes what they are saying easier to understand, then they have used the language correctly. It doesn't matter how many rules have been broken, only that the meaning of what was said is clearer.

I don't think it is true that language is used only to "clarify meaning" or that the "rules" only exist to do towards that aim. For example, English has a third-person -s meaning that while we can say "I like skiing" we also say "She likes skiing." That is clearly as much of a rule as almost anything else in grammar and yet what does it add to the meaning? Similarly, do plural forms help clarify the meaning or are they redundant particularly given that we also have subject-verb agreement to clue us in on the number being talked about.

Aside from that, language also demonstrates other things such as social distance in indirect requests, or the use of irony, and we often use language to deliberately obscure or tone down the meaning such as in the use of euphemisms or when we deliberately want to be ambiguous for whatever reason.

The example of the 'split infinitive' is an excellent example of the grammar nazis getting it wrong. An earlier poster said that the 'split infinitive' was made up. It's actually worse than that. It was part of an attempt to impose the rules of Latin grammar upon the English language. It failed miserably. IMHO, the only reason anyone still thinks it's a 'rule' is because of the famous example from 'Star Trek'.

I think you may have misunderstood. The supposed "rule" that came from prescriptivist grammarians trying to impose Latin grammar was a prohibition on the split infinitive, and the Star Trek example was seen as a violation of this "rule".

 

[Rat]

This runs deep.

"Rat is in hospital" is a generic statement where we don't necessarily know which hospital. He's just ill or injured and the particular hospital isn't important.

"Rat is in the hospital" suggests we know which one.

"Rat's in 'ospital!" is very plausible UKspeak, but suggests the speaker is a little lax with their English, like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.

Firstly, I would like to assure everybody that I'm not actually in hospital. Also, "in the hospital" does not always mean as a patient, while "in hospital" always does, although "at the hospital" would be common if you meant that someone was just visiting.

I think Americans sometimes say that someone is "in school" in the sense for which I would use "at school", which sounds odd at least to my ears.

 

[azzthom]

Yes, but usage is not the same as the following...



I don't think it is true that language is used only to "clarify meaning" or that the "rules" only exist to do towards that aim. For example, English has a third-person -s meaning that while we can say "I like skiing" we also say "She likes skiing." That is clearly as much of a rule as almost anything else in grammar and yet what does it add to the meaning? Similarly, do plural forms help clarify the meaning or are they redundant particularly given that we also have subject-verb agreement to clue us in on the number being talked about.

Language exists for communication. The 'rules' make it easier for language to do it's job. 'I like skiing' and 'she likes skiing' have two different meanings. They tell us who likes skiing. The first refers to the speaker. The second refers to a different female. Quite a difference in meaning. Plural forms can, of course, clarify meaning. People use whatever they're familiar with, and whatever they feel gets their point across most effectively. If that means breaking the rules, then I'm OK with it.

Aside from that, language also demonstrates other things such as social distance in indirect requests, or the use of irony, and we often use language to deliberately obscure or tone down the meaning such as in the use of euphemisms or when we deliberately want to be ambiguous for whatever reason.

All examples of usage. All examples where rules can be broken to make meaning clearer.

I think you may have misunderstood. The supposed "rule" that came from prescriptivist grammarians trying to impose Latin grammar was a prohibition on the split infinitive, and the Star Trek example was seen as a violation of this "rule".

That's exactly the point I was making.

 

[angrysoba]

Language exists for communication. The 'rules' make it easier for language to do it's job. 'I like skiing' and 'she likes skiing' have two different meanings. They tell us who likes skiing. The first refers to the speaker. The second refers to a different female. Quite a difference in meaning. Plural forms can, of course, clarify meaning. People use whatever they're familiar with, and whatever they feel gets their point across most effectively. If that means breaking the rules, then I'm OK with it.

Err...why not "I like skiing" and "She like skiing"? Yet almost nobody does use the second sentence.

All examples of usage. All examples where rules can be broken to make meaning clearer.

Errrmm...you seem to again be missing the point. You said, "The rules of grammar, punctuation and even spelling exist for one reason alone. To clarify meaning."

You are wrong!

That's exactly the point I was making.

If you say so, although I was trying to clarify your meaning.

 

[TjW]

If you said "Rat's in the hospital" and leave out the ' : that would disturb a lot of people.

And if, while Rat was in (the) hospital, they left out his : that would undoubtedly disturb Rat.

 

[arthwollipot]

angrysoba, you said a lot in your reply to me, but going over it wouldn't be particularly productive - instead I'd like to respond to just one particular point:

Why should reading without thinking be the goal?

You misunderstood me. The goal is not reading without thinking. The goal is reading without thinking about the process of reading itself. Of course you want to think about the subject of what you're reading. But if you're spending too much time thinking about how to interpret what you see in order to understand what is being written about, then the goal of understanding has been lost.

The rules of grammar, punctuation and even spelling exist for one reason alone. To clarify meaning. If the way an individual says something makes what they are saying easier to understand, then they have used the language correctly. It doesn't matter how many rules have been broken, only that the meaning of what was said is clearer.

Indeed. As I often say, as long as communication was did.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I wanted to emphasise that prepreparation is the most important concept in my sentence.

Cody and me wonder if this may be postpostmodern grammar.

 

[commandlinegamer]

"Cody and me is correct." The easy way to check this is to eliminate Cody.
"The weather will be tough for Cody and I." becomes "The weather will be tough for I." which obviously should be "The weather will be tough for me."

With comparisons, it's a different kettle of fish:

"The rubber-suited fishermen were better prepared for the weather than Cody and I."

But I suspect many would end it with "Cody and me".

 

[angrysoba]

angrysoba, you said a lot in your reply to me, but going over it wouldn't be particularly productive - instead I'd like to respond to just one particular point:

You misunderstood me. The goal is not reading without thinking. The goal is reading without thinking about the process of reading itself. Of course you want to think about the subject of what you're reading. But if you're spending too much time thinking about how to interpret what you see in order to understand what is being written about, then the goal of understanding has been lost.

I think the most important consideration in that case is good style which is not the same as "proper grammar". I think that "proper grammar" is neither necessary nor is it sufficient for what might be called "transparent prose".

And I would also caution against the idea that writing should always be unambiguous when it comes to interpretation or that it should always be easy. A lot of poetry, to name but one example, deliberately plays with how the reader should interpret the words.

Anyway, I'm sorry if my previous post came across as grumpy or short. It probably did, and that was partly because I am grumpy and short.

 

[shadron]

Why should 19th century buffons decide that 2nd century rules apply to a 10th century language?

For purposes of being able to communicate clearly. If you cannot be understood it's hardly worth banging the keyboard, all us "buffons" agree.

There are prescriptive standards, but in the grand scheme of things, a dynamite writer with grammar issues is more compelling than a person with perfect grammar and nothing to say.

...and even better is a dynamite writer who can do it within the rules. His work stands a chance of being readable after the next 50 years.

 

[angrysoba]

For purposes of being able to communicate clearly.

I think that was perfectly possible before the 19th Century, too.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Interesting thread. As a foreigner not gifted at all for grammar and these language business in general (in fact, pretty moronic at it), I would like to contribute my two pesos -Chilean or Colombian, if you needed the exchange rate- so you can hear how this is seen from the outside, and from different prejudices.

Firstly, my guts tell me to say "Cody an me" though I would probably say "Cody and I" a number of times because I would be translating literally from Spanish, grammar included.

I would never say "me and Cody" and I was astounded when I read that some were considering "me and Cody" and "Cody and me" as a grammar related question, when it's clear that both are grammatically sound. Avoiding "me and Cody" is a matter of general education and everyday morality, related to saying "please" and "thank you". If a kid here said "me and Cody" his mother -rich or poor, with college education or just elementary school- would immediately say "el burro delante, para que no se espante" (the donkey in front, to avoid it to be scared off) in order to correct her kid.

About those praising anything in use as good grammar, I would say that I may deal with "ain't" and "me neither" as part of some grammar, but that I have some problems with "I seen them two boys run out", and I would like to see what them free style grammar lovers sketch to make "I ate a whole nother apple" grammatically sound. Maybe dictionaries will show an entry with "nother: adj. additional".