Not the only one here

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.


I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

On 16/09/2014 11:07 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

It's one of the reasons I try to discourage my ESL students from using
contractions in general. I tell them that it's best to learn the proper
form first and master it before attempting to contract things. Their
instinct is still to use contractions at all times though.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 13:40:22 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

In addition the USA with its simplified spelling (to which so many kids
have access on the Net these days) must carry a bit of blame. And then
there's text-lingo ("I c u r 2 Is 4 me" sort of thing).


That sort of spelling drives me crazy. I can't stand it, and (to be at
least slightly on-topic) to when I see messages like that in
newsgroups and forums, my eyes glaze over and I almost always ignore
that message and move on to the next one.

But I also know that in all probability, in not too many years it will
become standard. The good thing is that at my age (76), I'll probably
be dead and gone by the time it happens. :-)

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:20 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 11:07 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

It's one of the reasons I try to discourage my ESL students from using
contractions in general. I tell them that it's best to learn the proper
form first and master it before attempting to contract things.



That seems like a good idea.

On 16/09/2014 12:07 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:20 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 11:07 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

It's one of the reasons I try to discourage my ESL students from using
contractions in general. I tell them that it's best to learn the proper
form first and master it before attempting to contract things.

That seems like a good idea.

It forces them to get acquainted with the expressions that contracted
forms generally represent. If you write "should of" all the time, it's
because you have no idea what it represents. You write what you hear.
If, however, you're constantly forced to write "should have" before
turning to the appropriate "should've," chances are that you will spell
it correctly for the rest of your life.

In general though, I tell them that it is important for them to have
respect for the language and not use it the way they would a
woodcutter's axe. Language can be art just as easily as it can be a
means to an end.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/09/2014 12:07 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:20 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 11:07 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

It's one of the reasons I try to discourage my ESL students from using
contractions in general. I tell them that it's best to learn the proper
form first and master it before attempting to contract things.

That seems like a good idea.

It forces them to get acquainted with the expressions that contracted
forms generally represent. If you write "should of" all the time, it's
because you have no idea what it represents. You write what you hear.
If, however, you're constantly forced to write "should have" before
turning to the appropriate "should've," chances are that you will spell
it correctly for the rest of your life.

In general though, I tell them that it is important for them to have
respect for the language and not use it the way they would a
woodcutter's axe. Language can be art just as easily as it can be a
means to an end.

My English teacher at school told us that the best writer about the sea
in the English language was Joseph Conrad; a Pole, using his second
language.
He thought it extremely ironic that the rulers of the seven seas should
be in that situation.

Conrad's English shows the attitude that you've explained above. You can
tell in every line that he loved the artistry of it.

Ed

On 2014-09-16 1:28 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
Silver Slimer wrote:
On 16/09/2014 12:07 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:13:20 -0400, Silver Slimer
wrote:

On 16/09/2014 11:07 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:42:53 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 19:56:30 +0100, John wrote:

Worse by far than any of those is "should of" instead of "should
have". That grates on my ears.

To be fair, their teachers, and the teachers of those teachers
probably never learned the differences, either so it is not entirely
the fault of the person involved.

The nature of many of these common mistakes becomes a lot clearer if
you see them printed than if you only know how they sound. A little
knowledge of grammar is helpful too, so that you know, for example,
that "of" isn't a verb, and why you need one, so that you understand
why phrases like "must of" and "should of" are meaningless.


But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

I confess to being guilty of saying "should've" or "must've" at least
some of the time. But I certainly never mean it as "should of" or
"must of."

It's one of the reasons I try to discourage my ESL students from using
contractions in general. I tell them that it's best to learn the proper
form first and master it before attempting to contract things.

That seems like a good idea.

It forces them to get acquainted with the expressions that contracted
forms generally represent. If you write "should of" all the time, it's
because you have no idea what it represents. You write what you hear.
If, however, you're constantly forced to write "should have" before
turning to the appropriate "should've," chances are that you will spell
it correctly for the rest of your life.

In general though, I tell them that it is important for them to have
respect for the language and not use it the way they would a
woodcutter's axe. Language can be art just as easily as it can be a
means to an end.

My English teacher at school told us that the best writer about the sea
in the English language was Joseph Conrad; a Pole, using his second
language.
He thought it extremely ironic that the rulers of the seven seas should
be in that situation.

Conrad's English shows the attitude that you've explained above. You can
tell in every line that he loved the artistry of it.

What a strange coincidence that a Pole (me) would agree with Joseph
Conrad (a Pole).

I've always wanted to write and I figured that if someone like Conrad
could write a book in his second language, I have no excuse. It's too
bad I'm so damned lazy.

--
Silver Slimer
OpenMedia Supporter
Proud member of chrisv's imaginary killfile

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 23:48:42 +0100, John wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:07:16 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

It is when they *type* "should of" in emails and technical reports.



Of course. But they are typing what they think they hear,

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:33:20 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

But, at least in many cases, when you hear someone saying "should of"
or "must of" that isn't what they are really saying. They are saying a
contraction, "should've" or "must've." And that's not as much an error
as it seems to be.

It is when they *type* "should of" in emails and technical reports.



Of course. But they are typing what they think they hear,

Which is more or less the point I was trying to make earlier. If they
learnt their language not just by hearing it but also by reading it,
this wouldn't happen.

Rod.

John wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 06:50:18 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:43:07 +0100, John wrote:

1. I think the world would be a better place if there were only a
single language and we all spoke it. And even though I am USAan rather
than an Englander, I think that single language should be English. Why
English? Not because it's *my* native language, but because it's the
language that more people know (not necessarily as their first
language) than any other.

I don't doubt this. However, Chinese wins as a first language. By
"Chinese", I mean Mandarin, of course. If you include all the Cantnese
and other "languages" it wins with no possibility of argument.
Mandarin might even win as a second and third language as it is
possible that many non-Mandarin-speaking Chnese can follow it simply
because its use so overwhelms the use of their own dialect or
language.

A lot of people may speak Chinese, but if most of them live in China,
what use is that? Maybe we should devise some parameter that includes
a measure of how widely distributed a language is, as well as the
number of speakers. That would seem to be a better indication of
suitability as a "World language".

By that criterion, English wins and has done for a century and more.
Portuguese is possibly second. That or Spanish. Portuguese is used in
some little bits and Brasil but Spanish covers much of the Americas,
including a fair chunk of USAlia if you include non-citizens.
English is possibly the most distributed language in the history of
the species.
J.



Rod.

If "distributed" includes "numbers who speak it", then maybe I'd agree.
But if it's limited to "territory covered", then Greek in the wake of
Alexander of Macedon beats it.

Ed

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:06:20 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

1. I think the world would be a better place if there were only a
single language and we all spoke it. And even though I am USAan rather
than an Englander, I think that single language should be English. Why
English? Not because it's *my* native language, but because it's the
language that more people know (not necessarily as their first
language) than any other.

I don't doubt this. However, Chinese wins as a first language. By
"Chinese", I mean Mandarin, of course. If you include all the Cantnese
and other "languages" it wins with no possibility of argument.
Mandarin might even win as a second and third language as it is
possible that many non-Mandarin-speaking Chnese can follow it simply
because its use so overwhelms the use of their own dialect or
language.

A lot of people may speak Chinese, but if most of them live in China,
what use is that? Maybe we should devise some parameter that includes
a measure of how widely distributed a language is, as well as the
number of speakers. That would seem to be a better indication of
suitability as a "World language".

By that criterion, English wins and has done for a century and more.
Portuguese is possibly second. That or Spanish. Portuguese is used in
some little bits and Brasil but Spanish covers much of the Americas,
including a fair chunk of USAlia if you include non-citizens.
English is possibly the most distributed language in the history of
the species.
J.



Rod.

If "distributed" includes "numbers who speak it", then maybe I'd agree.
But if it's limited to "territory covered", then Greek in the wake of
Alexander of Macedon beats it.

By "distributed" I definitely meant geographically distributed, as
this is an important part of what determines the usefulness of a
language as a means communication. There's not much point being able
to communicate with lots of people if they're all in the same place.
I'm not sure how such a parameter and the relevant weighting factors
would be devised, but I think we need to recognise the need to do it,
as sheer numbers on their own don't tell the whole story.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:06:20 +0100, Ed Cryer
wrote:

1. I think the world would be a better place if there were only a
single language and we all spoke it. And even though I am USAan rather
than an Englander, I think that single language should be English. Why
English? Not because it's *my* native language, but because it's the
language that more people know (not necessarily as their first
language) than any other.

I don't doubt this. However, Chinese wins as a first language. By
"Chinese", I mean Mandarin, of course. If you include all the Cantnese
and other "languages" it wins with no possibility of argument.
Mandarin might even win as a second and third language as it is
possible that many non-Mandarin-speaking Chnese can follow it simply
because its use so overwhelms the use of their own dialect or
language.

A lot of people may speak Chinese, but if most of them live in China,
what use is that? Maybe we should devise some parameter that includes
a measure of how widely distributed a language is, as well as the
number of speakers. That would seem to be a better indication of
suitability as a "World language".

By that criterion, English wins and has done for a century and more.
Portuguese is possibly second. That or Spanish. Portuguese is used in
some little bits and Brasil but Spanish covers much of the Americas,
including a fair chunk of USAlia if you include non-citizens.
English is possibly the most distributed language in the history of
the species.
J.



Rod.

If "distributed" includes "numbers who speak it", then maybe I'd agree.
But if it's limited to "territory covered", then Greek in the wake of
Alexander of Macedon beats it.

By "distributed" I definitely meant geographically distributed, as
this is an important part of what determines the usefulness of a
language as a means communication. There's not much point being able
to communicate with lots of people if they're all in the same place.
I'm not sure how such a parameter and the relevant weighting factors
would be devised, but I think we need to recognise the need to do it,
as sheer numbers on their own don't tell the whole story.

Rod.


There is no doubt that English is the international language in today's
world. Even the Chinese are busy learning it.

--
A

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Both in the USA and the UK, some people who speak English are rhotic
(lords) and some are non-rhotic (lawds). In the USA, generally people
on most parts of the east coast are non-rhotic (for example, it's easy
to recognize New Yorkers because they say "New Yawk"), but the rest of
the country is mostly rhotic. Parts of the UK are also non-rhotic, but
you probably know where they are much better than I do.

I learned something new today: I'm non-rhotic, I was not aware of that
term. As a New Yawka, that's how I tawk. I don't drink cawfee and I
have three dawgs.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:24:19 +0200, A wrote:

There is no doubt that English is the international language in today's
world. Even the Chinese are busy learning it.


I went on a tour of China's major cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guilin,
Xian, Hong Kong) thirteen years ago. Not everyone spoke it, but it was
widely spoken even then.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 09:21:19 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...

Both in the USA and the UK, some people who speak English are rhotic
(lords) and some are non-rhotic (lawds). In the USA, generally people
on most parts of the east coast are non-rhotic (for example, it's easy
to recognize New Yorkers because they say "New Yawk"), but the rest of
the country is mostly rhotic. Parts of the UK are also non-rhotic, but
you probably know where they are much better than I do.

I learned something new today: I'm non-rhotic, I was not aware of that
term. As a New Yawka, that's how I tawk. I don't drink cawfee and I
have three dawgs.


It's the easiest way for me to recognize someone's a New Yorker.