Of course it is - while not knowing what it should be - ignorance.
That's how these things start.
Did you think someone (or a committee) woke up one morning and intentionally decided to change the meaning of a word?
Private Message replies to threads.
- Thread starter SUNRAY
- Start date
That's how these things start.
Did you think someone (or a committee) woke up one morning and intentionally decided to change the meaning of a word?
Sponsored Links
But how far back do you want to go? Have you never said (something like) "I am going to start"? How would you rephrase that to correct the 'error'?
Some examples of that are known as eggcorns.
I recently saw this one for the first time.
You have just contradicted yourself. If someone is "attempt[ing] to write (phonetically) what [they] think is being said" then they are not being "sloppy". They are doing the best they know how.
Context is always important. When writing a formal document (a manual at work, a CV/application letter, etc), then using 'correct' English is important. When sending a note to a friend (paper / email / text / whatever) then it matters a lot less.
I think that is probably rather 'nit-picking'
For a start, as I said, my English teacher would have said that even the words they had mis-heard (e.g. "would've" and "should've") were, themselves, 'sloppy' - and that view would presumably not change if the words were written incorrectly. My point was that many people regard the end-result of what we're talking about as being 'sloppy', and hence probably think that the perpetrator's "best they know" is 'not really good enough' - i.e. they haven't listened carefully enough and/or thought enough about what they are writing.
Having said that, I think that there are some situations in which "the best they know" view is reasonable, and the result therefore fairly understandable/'excusable'. For example, as I said, there have certainly been instances of words that I've only heard (but never seen written) that I have mis-spelled for decades before become aware of my error. Whilst some might say that if I had never seen a word written I should have looked up the spelling before attempting to write it myself, I think it is understandable/excusable that I didn't do that if the spoken word created no suspicion that its written form was not just a simple phonetic representation of the spoken word ('silent letters' are the usual culprit!). This can, of course, be a particular issue with proper nouns, so it's always advisable to check or ask before writing one that one has only ever heard!
Indeed so, but the 'purists' would often dispute that. The arguments (often involving such people) which arise here often relate to situations in which someone writes something which is technically 'incorrect', but we all "know what they meant". Opinions vary considerably as to how one should react/respond to such a situation.
Having said that, whilst I certainly do not share his blanket opposition to evolution of language (based on the fact that 'evolution' inevitably starts with '{currently} incorrect use of language'), I get as irritated as him (and many others) by some of the language used today - and "should of" etc. comes into that category. Maybe it's partially due to age, and simply 'what we have got used to'. I think I would personally regard some 'evolutions' as being beneficial (sometimes because they represent 'simplifications'), but tend to get irritated when they seem to have been 'pointless' - for example, when I hear my daughters (including the barrister one, who has a first-class degree in English!) using "can I get XYZ?" when asking for something in a shop, or booking a taxi - i simply don't see how that offers any benefit over the 'correct' phraseology!
I'm far less concerned about 'text-speak', when used in text messages, because I regard it simply as a matter of efficiency and expediency. Recent generations may think that they have invented this 'language', but I was brought up, starting well over 50 years ago, using morse code to communicate as a radio amateur, and the 'abbreviated language' (involving few vowels other that "u"!) we used for that would look very familiar to the 'texters' of today! I confess that I do (perhaps irrationally) get irritated when I see 'text-speak being used anywhere other than in text messages, even in informal e-mails, but maybe that's just me!
Kind Regards, John
In terms of the English language in general, there is obviously no person, or body, that could make such a decision. As Stephen has said, even dictionaries merely document how the language is being used, not how it should be used.
However, in terms of technical terminology, do you believe that, the change from describing, say, an incandescent GLS light bulb as a 'light bulb' (or just 'bulb') to a 'lamp' was an 'evolution' which resulted 'accidentally' from some people initially using the 'incorrect' word - rather than that someone/some body 'intentionally decided' that such a change should be introduced.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
I would say they are incorrect as that is not how they are pronounced.
The only 'sloppy' part is that the 'h' is dropped, therefore, if you want to write it, it should be "would'ave".
I think it is impossible to pronounce "would've". without inserting a vowel; be it 'a' or incorrectly 'o'.
I do not know how or when it started.
However, as I said previously, if - according to you - lamp actually means just the part that shines - the flame of an oil lamp - then calling a bulb a lamp, rather than the whole assembly (of, for example, a standard lamp) would seem logical.
Does the same apply to 'light'? What is a light?
Hmmm. I don't know. Give that the combination of two words with an apostrophe to replace missing letters is probably considered colloquial/illegitimate/'sloppy', there are probably not any official 'rules' about it. However, I doubt that your "pronounceability" test/rule is valid, not the least because ...
... the addition of "apostrophe s" to the end of a word to indicate possession is, as far as I am aware, grammatically 'legitimate'. However, if that is added to, say, a singular word which ends in an 's', then the result is unpronounceable without insertion of an implicit vowel, yet I presume is still 'correct' - examples like "princess's" and "truss's". Similarly with words ending in "sh" ("fish's", brush's" etc.) - and quite probably words with lots of other endings that I have not thought of!
Kind Regards, John
Nor do I, but I very much doubt that someone started it by 'incorrectly' calling a 'GLS bulb' a 'GLS lamp', after which everyone started following suit!
There surely was a 'decision' made (by goodness knows who/what!) that 'bulb' was no longer 'appropriate', wasn't there?
Kind Regards, John
Two wrongs don't make a right.
They don't - but I was suggesting that the fact that "apostrophe s" appears not to be considered "wrong", no matter what the ending of the word to which it is added (i.e. even if one has to 'add a vowel' to make it pronounceable) - which seems to undermine the argument you were presenting.Two wrongs don't make a right.
Kind Regards, John
Apparently the apostrophe is in place of the missing 'e'.
Ironically, Google queried my question.
Ironically, Google queried my question.
Fair enough - but that seems to indicate that using an apostrophe to represent a missing vowel (without which the word may not be pronounceable) is 'acceptable', doesn't it?
Kind Regards, John
If you want.
Why write the 'e' on the end then? It's not pronounced whichever way it is written -
but I still maintain all people are doing is drop the 'h'; so not really an abbreviation and so it should be written in full.
Why write the 'e' on the end then? It's not pronounced whichever way it is written -
but I still maintain all people are doing is drop the 'h'; so not really an abbreviation and so it should be written in full.
As I understand what yopu posted, the 'e' was a product of 'Old English', and Old English spelling was, in many ways, different from what we now have (even if you may regret that Old English ever 'evolved'!).
You seem to be coming up with various perceived 'rules' about what may, and may not, be replaced by an apostrophe in a written abbreviation, but I don't know if any others recognise those rules.
In terms of writing, people sometimes use an apostrophe to represent several missing letters (sometimes resulting in something that would be difficult or impossible to pronounce) - for example, " Internat'l " to abbreviate "International".
I'm therefore not sure why the apostrophe in " would've " can't be replacing a missing "ha".
Kind Regards, John
Yes, but that is not what we are discussing - which IS simply shortened versions of words to spell how people speak, e.g. "didn't".
Because people do not omit the 'ha' in speech but only the 'h'. The astoundingly stupid 'would of' has come about because some people pronounce 'would have' like that, thus proving that they do not even know what they are saying.
You might as well say it is acceptable for people who drop their 'h's to write things like "I live in an 'ouse" or more probably "I live in a nouse" (presumably no apostrophe would be used in the latter).
Where would it end?
Yes, I know some words have come about because of similar mistakes. Too late for them.
I really do not understand why you think it necessary to invent excuses for such mistakes and think there is nothing wrong with them being perpetuated. If people aren't very bright then their mistakes should not be forced on the rest of us.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
