BoxRec

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

mick t wrote:I enjoy it when people say "nooone" instead of no one :)

noone is correct, not no one..people don't put it cos it looks wrong.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/noone

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

Good call Carbo - none of us are perfect (or is that 'is perfect' ?? 8) ) but I can't stand the way writing is becoming so Americanised and spelling and grammar is awful.

I know that language does evolve, but when its rules start to be irrelevant, then sentences start to lose meaning or are just not clear. On an everyday conversational level it may not matter, but in important meetings, in academic books, in dialogue with important consequences it matters a lot. (See for example the double negative.)

In if someone can't talk or spell properly in normal conversation then it's unlikely he can hold a grammatically correct dialogue in any scenario.

Spelling is just terrible now - and it does make a difference in commerce and business - I just don't buy the argument that the content is really the most important thing....I mean if you can't make your points clearly then the strength of your content is lost.

I mean if someone can't learn or at least intuitively pick up or question basic spelling rules then to me that indicates sloppiness, lack of analysis and that they just don't read much.

E wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

I mean if someone can't learn or at least intuitively pick up or question basic spelling rules then to me that indicates sloppiness, lack of analysis and that they just don't read much.

I agree with your sentiment E!! So how do you explain this sentence?? :geek2:

[/quote]

In if someone can't talk or spell properly in normal conversation then it's unlikely he can hold a grammatically correct dialogue in any scenario.[/quote]

I hate it when sportsmen talk about themselves as the third person. Being from Norwich and a Norwich fan, Glenn Roeder does it all the time:

"You won't see Glenn Roeder backing away from a challenge" and "Glenn Roeder is going to roll his sleeves up" etc etc.

Really annoys me....

And people from Norfolk do say "that'll learn ya" but we know its not correct. We're just inbred.

I'm now of to sleep with my cousin.

Wax On wrote:

E wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

I mean if someone can't learn or at least intuitively pick up or question basic spelling rules then to me that indicates sloppiness, lack of analysis and that they just don't read much.

I agree with your sentiment E!! So how do you explain this sentence?? :geek2:

E wrote: In if someone can't talk or spell properly in normal conversation then it's unlikely he can hold a grammatically correct dialogue in any scenario.

You're obviously better at reading than working out how to use the styles tool on forums ;;-)

I have corrected this for you!

Not sure what I meant there, I think the 'In' is part of a sentence I deleted..didn't proof read, posting at work has to be done quickly and surreptitiously! (Lord I hope I spelled (spelt?) that right...)

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

Of course you're right, James. I would rather have an innovative view or opinion presented colourfully that hackneyed dishwater laboriously edited.

Frankly, I started the thread as a bit of a laugh -- what's happening to the future tense? -- and to see if anyone else had noticed this phenomenon. However, once it got going, posters tended to fall into two categories -- "get a grip! what are you on about?"; and "Yeah, you're right, and while we're at it, what about..." When those in the latter group started listing their pet hates, it made me realize how much pap gets posted on Seconds Out and other sites. As I say, the opinion counts, but surely, for a higher-end site like Seconds Out, people who consider themselves as journalists should at least be able to follow some simple rules to make themselves clearly understood. In fact, I am sure that if one was to make a visit to journalism school, the first thing taught would be adherence to some kind of English usage guide, like Fowler’s.

Listen, I know they're not writing for the New Yorker, so I don't think it's fair to argue about which parenthetic statement needs enclosing in commas and which doesn't, but these guys aren't even getting the GCSE stuff right.

Of course, English grammar is pretty flexible, far more so, I suspect, than other languages. We native speakers can work it by ‘feeling’ it, rather than knowing it – I know I know next to nothing. But as somebody once said, "Grammar is like walking: you have to think about it enough to get to where you're going safely and swiftly, but think about it too much, and you'll walk slowly and unnaturally."

But hey, now this thread has got way out of hand. Didn't mean it to go this deep. Just wanted to know where the future tense went, and I suspect I'm setting myself up for a big fall somewhere down the line.

Carbo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

Of course you're right, James. I would rather have an innovative view or opinion presented colourfully that hackneyed dishwater laboriously edited.

Frankly, I started the thread as a bit of a laugh -- what's happening to the future tense? -- and to see if anyone else had noticed this phenomenon. However, once it got going, posters tended to fall into two categories -- "get a grip! what are you on about?"; and "Yeah, you're right, and while we're at it, what about..." When those in the latter group started listing their pet hates, it made me realize how much pap gets posted on Seconds Out and other sites. As I say, the opinion counts, but surely, for a higher-end site like Seconds Out, people who consider themselves as journalists should at least be able to follow some simple rules to make themselves clearly understood. In fact, I am sure that if one was to make a visit to journalism school, the first thing taught would be adherence to some kind of English usage guide, like Fowler’s.

Listen, I know they're not writing for the New Yorker, so I don't think it's fair to argue about which parenthetic statement needs enclosing in commas and which doesn't, but these guys aren't even getting the GCSE stuff right.

Of course, English grammar is pretty flexible, far more so, I suspect, than other languages. We native speakers can work it by ‘feeling’ it, rather than knowing it – I know I know next to nothing. But as somebody once said, "Grammar is like walking: you have to think about it enough to get to where you're going safely and swiftly, but think about it too much, and you'll walk slowly and unnaturally."

But hey, now this thread has got way out of hand. Didn't mean it to go this deep. Just wanted to know where the future tense went, and I suspect I'm setting myself up for a big fall somewhere down the line.

They are enclosed in brackets, as parentheses ARE brackets. Relative clauses, subordinate clauses etc. are enclosed by commas. Sorry, but I couldn't resist!

chesh wrote:

Carbo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:This is a storm in a tea cup. I'm personally much more concerned about what people actually say, rather than the minutiae of grammar. That's the editors job, but to be honest if the writing is good enough, I'll forgive a bit of shaky grammar.

This is journalism, not the oxford english dictionary, and grammatical rules are not quite as rigid as you might believe, there are different styles of application of grammar, to apply it's as cut and dried as you are is entirely incorrect. Internet sites often use colloquial grammar, which fits the format.

Of course you're right, James. I would rather have an innovative view or opinion presented colourfully that hackneyed dishwater laboriously edited.

Frankly, I started the thread as a bit of a laugh -- what's happening to the future tense? -- and to see if anyone else had noticed this phenomenon. However, once it got going, posters tended to fall into two categories -- "get a grip! what are you on about?"; and "Yeah, you're right, and while we're at it, what about..." When those in the latter group started listing their pet hates, it made me realize how much pap gets posted on Seconds Out and other sites. As I say, the opinion counts, but surely, for a higher-end site like Seconds Out, people who consider themselves as journalists should at least be able to follow some simple rules to make themselves clearly understood. In fact, I am sure that if one was to make a visit to journalism school, the first thing taught would be adherence to some kind of English usage guide, like Fowler’s.

Listen, I know they're not writing for the New Yorker, so I don't think it's fair to argue about which parenthetic statement needs enclosing in commas and which doesn't, but these guys aren't even getting the GCSE stuff right.

Of course, English grammar is pretty flexible, far more so, I suspect, than other languages. We native speakers can work it by ‘feeling’ it, rather than knowing it – I know I know next to nothing. But as somebody once said, "Grammar is like walking: you have to think about it enough to get to where you're going safely and swiftly, but think about it too much, and you'll walk slowly and unnaturally."

But hey, now this thread has got way out of hand. Didn't mean it to go this deep. Just wanted to know where the future tense went, and I suspect I'm setting myself up for a big fall somewhere down the line.

They are enclosed in brackets, as parentheses ARE brackets. Relative clauses, subordinate clauses etc. are enclosed by commas. Sorry, but I couldn't resist!

Oh dear. This is going to deteriorate into a sad, virtually unintelligible debate about grammar, isn't it?

Anyway, to defend myself, you’re wrong.

By way of explanation, in my copy of ‘The Elements of Style’ by Strunk and White, rule three of chapter 1, "The Elementary Rules of Usage", is "Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas", which I would have thought suggests that all parenthetic statements are not enclosed in what the Americans call parenthesis and we call brackets.

By way of further explanation, Strunk and White continue, "This rule is difficult to apply; it is frequently hard to decide if a single word, such as however, or a brief phrase is or is not parenthetic. If the interruption to the sentence is but slight, the commas may be safely omitted."

Perhaps we simply use different terms to describe the same thing?

I suggest that if you wish to continue this really, utterly thrilling debate, we do so via PM. That way we can save others from the tedium. Same goes for anyone else who now wants to pick me up on the no doubt numerous mistakes through out my posts here.