What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Clary wrote:

Koh Samui has a VERY pretty airport.

And very good massage parlors like in Lamai beach.

0 Replies

Scoats--

"I/we should have run...." counts as professional jargon and this profession prefers the Editorial "We".

0 Replies

Clary wrote:

And apropos of the personal pronouns - how often does one hear "He gave them to you and I"? More times than "you and me", I bet

I'd not worry about him if i were you.

Favorite preposition buster for confusing non-native speakers:

"Daddy, where's that book you brought up to read to me out of?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

It seems okay to me. Could you explain, SCoates, what you think is wrong with it?
"Run" can be both transative and intransative.

I have noticed, when you (I) think a lot about a word or a phrase, it starts to seem a bit weird, even when there is nothing originally wrong with it.

Well, I can only quote one of you, but kep in mind I don't know a lot of the rules or terminology for verb usage--I just go by what I hear.

In other cases, putting "could have" before a verb changes the verb to past tense. At least that was my impression. For example, you can't say "I could have jump." So why doesn't "run" change to "ran" in the same instance?

I was deliberately vague with my initial post on the subject; one must be careful when wading into pedant infested water. Smile

0 Replies

(back on topic this is)

Irregardless used in place of "Regardless"

I won't betray the trust of these FL attorneys that misuse that with such silvery ease...

0 Replies

onyxelle wrote:

(back on topic this is)

Irregardless used in place of "Regardless"

I won't betray the trust of these FL attorneys that misuse that with such silvery ease...

Yeah, that drives me nuts. It's a non-word. And I've heard well educated people use it blithely.

0 Replies

Did I really spell transitive that way? Gosh. Embarrassed

Sorry.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

McTag wrote:
It seems okay to me. Could you explain, SCoates, what you think is wrong with it?
"Run" can be both transitive and intransitive.

I have noticed, when you (I) think a lot about a word or a phrase, it starts to seem a bit weird, even when there is nothing originally wrong with it.

Well, I can only quote one of you, but kep in mind I don't know a lot of the rules or terminology for verb usage--I just go by what I hear.

In other cases, putting "could have" before a verb changes the verb to past tense. At least that was my impression. For example, you can't say "I could have jump." So why doesn't "run" change to "ran" in the same instance?

I was deliberately vague with my initial post on the subject; one must be careful when wading into pedant infested water.

I'll need to wait for the technicians to analyse this, but it is to do with the correct participle, I think: I ran, but I have run. "Ran" is the past tense, but "run" is the past participle. (as well as being the present tense)

0 Replies

McTag, as usual, is quite right.

0 Replies

Thanks.

0 Replies

Also an edition is a "press run" not a "press ran".

0 Replies

Merry Andrew and Oxynelle....

guilty as charged:
"Irregardless used in place of "Regardless" "

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Also an edition is a "press run" not a "press ran".

Yes but Noddy, that's using it as a noun, which may be confusing in this context.

We have the "Great North Run" which competes with the London Marathon, too.

Smile

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Well, I can only quote one of you, but kep in mind I don't know a lot of the rules or terminology for verb usage--I just go by what I hear.

In other cases, putting "could have" before a verb changes the verb to past tense. At least that was my impression. For example, you can't say "I could have jump." So why doesn't "run" change to "ran" in the same instance?

"... putting "could have" before a verb changes the verb to past tense."

Actually, <could> doesn't make it past tense, SCoates; using the perfect [have + PP] makes it so these types of sentences refer to past situations. Modals verbs, such as <could> only carry modality into a sentence.

SCoates wrote:

I'd like some feedback on a certain phrase.

"We should have run." As in, we should have run the article in this morning's news.

Regarding this, did it concern you at all that you seemed to be missing an object or was that not a problem for you/this situation?

0 Replies

run seems to be able to be used as past

His race is run

run, over, finished

0 Replies

yo jtt

how r u doin

check out my last post plz

phil

0 Replies

PhilAster wrote:

yo jtt how r u doin

check out my last post plz

phil

I saw it, Phil. Interesting observation.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

SCoates wrote:
I'd like some feedback on a certain phrase.

"We should have run." As in, we should have run the article in this morning's news.

Regarding this, did it concern you at all that you seemed to be missing an object or was that not a problem for you/this situation?

What do you mean by "missing an object"?

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

PhilAster wrote:
yo jtt how r u doin

check out my last post plz

phil

I saw it, Phil. Interesting observation.

It was to do with the study of English (or other language) as a science, was it not.

I suppose that while literature and other artistic endeavours using language (poetry, drama etc) are studied under the heading "Arts" there are other facets of language studies (linguistics, phonetics, etc) which are more properly grouped under the heading "Science".
I've the feeling this could be better put, but is intended to be helpful. Please correct any mistake or add to it if desired.

Am I correct in thinking that the study of language as a science is a fairly new thing, or at least that significant developments in it have only fairly recently been made?

I speak as a mere "Rude Mechanical" engineer.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

JTT wrote:

SCoates wrote:
I'd like some feedback on a certain phrase.

"We should have run." As in, we should have run the article in this morning's news.

Regarding this, did it concern you at all that you seemed to be missing an object or was that not a problem for you/this situation?

What do you mean by "missing an object"?

I meant as follows, SCoates.

We should have run [it].

We should have run [the article].

0 Replies

What are your pet peeves re English usage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know