colinuu:

 

Gurezaemon:

 

----

 

For the most part, we don't get that confused when someone uses 'you', which can be both singular and plural. 

 

----

 

 

Agreed, however 'you' is normally used in a face to face context where there will be no confusion. 'They' for singular jars with me, and can be confusing in some cases. Perhaps it's a generational thing?

 

It's definitely a generational thing, and I'm of the generation that still finds 'they' slightly unusual to use in this instance, but I recognise that it has a valid grammatical pedigree (even if prescriptive grammarians tried to abolish it because it didn't match their Latin-influenced ideas of how grammar should work), and I also see that it is a grammatically elegant way to refer to people when you are unaware of their gender, or you don't want to unnecessarily draw attention to it.

jpoc:

Eva888: <snip> Then there’s the embarrassing ones which you only see a millisecond and a gasp after you press send.

<snip>

Surely: "there are the embarrassing ones"?

 

Eva888:

 

Surely: "there are the embarrassing ones"?

 

There is (the matter of) the embarrassing ones.

I have been forcing myself to just "leave it" when it comes to matters of grammar.

Language is fluid and as long as intent and meaning are clear I no longer wish to die on this particular hill...

*that said*

As this is the grammar thread:

1) "Could of/should of" instead of "have" annoys me.

2) The Americanisation "Could care less" drives me nuts as it is not only grammatically incorrect it makes no logical sense either.

3) The confusion between when to use "few/fewer" and "less/lesser" bugs me. e.g. "less people turned up this year" instead of "fewer people turned up this year" 

I eagerly await the ninja-tier grammar police to point out all my errors in this post.

:(

Item:

I have been forcing myself to just "leave it" when it comes to matters of grammar.

Language is fluid and as long as intent and meaning are clear I no longer wish to die on this particular hill...

*that said*

As this is the grammar thread:

1) "Could of/should of" instead of "have" annoys me.

2) The Americanisation "Could care less" drives me nuts as it is not only grammatically incorrect it makes no logical sense either.

3) The confusion between when to use "few/fewer" and "less/lesser" bugs me. e.g. "less people turned up this year" instead of "fewer people turned up this year" 

 

I eagerly await the ninja-tier grammar police to point out all my errors in this post.

:(

I agree with you, except that there is confusion about few/fewer and less/lesser. Misuse in this case is basic ignorance. If you can count the units (e.g. units of persons) then it’s few/fewer; and if you can’t count the units easily because it’s a quantity (e.g. air in a room) then it’s less/lesser.

This one is my biggest bugbear.

Those ones annoy me too - though I really could care less about the middle one.

"Me and her went to the Golden Guitar finals in Gore last year" (and variants) is another common one that gets to me. 

BlinkyBill:

 

I agree with you, except that there is confusion about few/fewer and less/lesser. Misuse in this case is basic ignorance. If you can count the units (e.g. units of persons) then it’s few/fewer; and if you can’t count the units easily because it’s a quantity (e.g. air in a room) then it’s less/lesser.

 

 

 

This one is my biggest bugbear.

 

That is a clear way of expressing it that I will borrow next time.

I had always mumbled something like "if it is a volume or amount of something then "less", if it is a number of easily definable discreet objects then "fewer" "

I like yours better!

Stu: 

Just a warning regarding the FUG and Goodwin's Law: Please don't go there.

Oops, apologies!

colinuu:

 

I can't stand the currently in-vogue use of the word 'they' to mean a singular person of unspecified gender. It is just wrong, confusing, and unnecessary

 

As maybe one of the ‘they’s’ one might be talking about.  

One might suggest that the reference uses what in english may be called a ‘singular they’.   Otherwise known as a ‘third person singular pronoun’ - One is under the impression it goes back to around the 14th century in usage which I think has already been mentioned.

In terms of perhaps giving some explanation why it is used, while I cannot speak for others -  my interpretation of oneself being gender neutral is that one does not believe in gender (a broad oversimplification).  This means that I tend to avoid the use of terminology that is not neutral.

Item:

 

Stu: 

Just a warning regarding the FUG and Goodwin's Law: Please don't go there.

 

 

 

Oops, apologies!

 

Who's "Goodwin"?

Honest question - hope it's not a breach of Wheaton's law to ask something so dumb in this thread.

Gurezaemon:

 

colinuu:

 

Agreed, however 'you' is normally used in a face to face context where there will be no confusion. 'They' for singular jars with me, and can be confusing in some cases. Perhaps it's a generational thing?

 

 

It's definitely a generational thing, and I'm of the generation that still finds 'they' slightly unusual to use in this instance, but I recognise that it has a valid grammatical pedigree (even if prescriptive grammarians tried to abolish it because it didn't match their Latin-influenced ideas of how grammar should work), and I also see that it is a grammatically elegant way to refer to people when you are unaware of their gender, or you don't want to unnecessarily draw attention to it.

 

I'm of an older generation and I like the use of the singular "they". It allows me to focus on the person without including any expectations of their gender.

In the past I did get frustrated with the indistinguishable use of "you" when addressing one person in a group. "Y'all" being a way of making sure the audience knew they were included. 

Shadowfoot:

 

I'm of an older generation and I like the use of the singular "they". It allows me to focus on the person without including any expectations of their gender.

 

In the past I did get frustrated with the indistinguishable use of "you" when addressing one person in a group. "Y'all" being a way of making sure the audience knew they were included. 

 

This has its own issues...
Years ago, I asked an American.
"Since y'all is also sometimes used to mean a singular you, what do you use when you want to mean plural you?"

@Fred99:

Who's "Goodwin"?

Honest question - hope it's not a breach of Wheaton's law to ask something so dumb in this thread.

As there seem to be some erudite philologists, lexicologists, linguists etc participating in this thread, does anybody know what the words of our glorious national song mean.

There's mention of a nation's van.  Though the description seems to fit (especially when there's mention of a triple star rating), the lyrics were written at least a century before the Toyota Hiace appeared. Wikipedia indicates that "van" is an abbreviation for "vanguard" (presumably not the 1947-63 English car), I can't find dictionary references to "van" as an abbreviation, Wikipedia do reference its definition back to Te Ara, but that only seems to mention it as one of several "old-fashioned or obscure" words. 

I'm sure that it's not understood, we move along asunder; Our paths grow wider as the seasons creep; Along the years; we marvel and we wonder; Why life is life, and then we fall asleep.