Are younger students even being taught English grammar in school?

[dpnice]

Correct English is effectively a geriatric hobby.

Cursive writing is a geriatric art.

I really am beginning to believe this is true.

At the age of 62yrs I have decided I am loosing the battle and can only write as best I can and ignore the errors found everywhere else.

Giving advise if asked but correcting someone is really no longer worth the time and effort.

 

[m1thousand]

They're = Contracted form of "they are". They're bringing the chips to the party.

Their = Plural possessive, along the lines of singular possessive "his" or "her". Their chips were delicious!

There = Denoting a location. We are now heading there with the chips.

It's is a bit funky. Usually the time you see 's is when you're marking a possessive, as in Harry's chips are the best. However, it's the opposite case with it's. It's only means "it is", and the possessive is its. It's a beautiful day, and the sun shines its rays down on us.

AstareGod,
Im not asking about that

Im asking why is 'they're' used as opposed to 'they are'

I could look it up but if someone knows the answer . . .


To this day I dont know what 'sic' means or represents

(looking it up now)

 

[gsdx]

You could give us some gentle reminders here in these thread when you come across jarring examples of illegal grammar.

It's not only here. It's everywhere, even in articles and reports written by professional reporters and proofread by professional editors. I visit Yahoo!Answers from time to time and the grammar there is appalling. They can't grasp the most simple concepts of grammar which they should know from everyday conversation: "Is it 'my father has' or 'my father have'?" They can't differentiate between plurals and possessives. I've seen so many plural words made by adding an apostrophe and then 's': word's, table's, pancake's.

It truly is frightening to me when I think how much English has changed in the past few years, and it's getting worse and worse every day.

 

[m1thousand]

Congratulations

To me, it sounds like the word is spelt / spelled with a 'd' (congradulations)

Honestly, I think Im suppose to use 'spelt' and not spelled


Sic
The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), indicates that the quotation has been transcribed exactly as found in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

 

[gsdx]

To me, it sounds like the word is spelt / spelled with a 'd' (congradulations)

Honestly, I think Im suppose to use 'spelt' and not spelled

In Canada, as in the Commonwealth, the word is 'spelt' (as are 'dreamt' and 'learnt'). However, with such an American influence because of our close proximity to the United States, spelled, dreamed, and learned are equally correct and acceptable. Old fogies such as I prefer to use the spellings we grew up with.

 

[palbert]

@ gsdx

Aren't you living where "the government have?"

Seems the island just off France does that too.

I've never understood that one.

 

[Corny]

In this thread - native speakers with more problems than me

Sometimes it has its advantages to have a grammar infested mother tongue

 

[bendted]

Old fogies such as I prefer to use the spellings we grew up with.

What happened to the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition?

 

[palbert]

What happened to the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition?

I see what you did there.

(Should he have ended with a proposition?)

 

[skinIsIn]

'Either they're not . . . "

How are we [STRIKE]suppose[/STRIKE] supposed to know which version of 'they're,' [STRIKE]is suppose to use?[/STRIKE] is to be used?

- [STRIKE]what[/STRIKE] which is the right version to use? How do you know?

Gsdx,
this isn't a criticism of your post, it's a question about that word.


For example, when are you [STRIKE]suppose[/STRIKE] supposed to use 'it's' versus 'it is' ? or 'isn't' versus 'is not'

The only thing [STRIKE]Ive[/STRIKE] I've made sure to know is about 'you're', versus 'your'

Wowza, I've been rightly gob-smacked by the paucity of grammar, found in this much-maligned missive!

By the way, regarding when to use (it's) vs. (its); it is a matter of clarity.

Whenever you can replace "its" with "it is," in a sentence, it requires an apostrophe.
As IT'S, is a contraction!

The other case, is an exception to the possessive apostrophe "S" rule; regarding the third-person singular personal pronoun.

An animal of unknown gender:
"The dog barked happily at the sight of its master returning home."

A person of unknown gender:
"A child should not quarrel with its parents or elders."

And inanimate objects:
"My car may have been towed or stolen, as I did not find it in its usual spot.

PS:

And what is up with those who seem to not realize that it is: "supposED to" & "usED to"?
Not "suppose to" & "use to!"

It really grinds my gears!

 

[rareboy]

In this thread - native speakers with more problems than [STRIKE]me[/STRIKE] I

Sometimes it has its advantages to have a grammar infested mother tongue

oops....but don't even think of testing my German first person, second person. Epic fail for me.....

 

[dereperez]

Hope this doesn't turn out to be a youth-bashing thread.

 

[Corny]

haha, no - even in proper German that would have been wrong. My local dialect took over

 

[gsdx]

@ gsdx

Aren't you living where "the government have?"

We've never done that as far as I'm aware. In Canada, 'government' is a singular noun, so it has always been 'the government has'. Another rule I haven't figured out yet is in the Harry Potter series when they play quidditch and Madam Hooch announces, "Gryffindor win!!"

What happened to the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition?

Yeah, I know. Some things change. At one point in my life, that is the type of nonsense up with which I would not put.

- - - Updated - - -

Hope this doesn't turn out to be a youth-bashing thread.

It's not. If anything, it's an education-bashing thread. Why have they stopped teaching simple grammar?

 

[frankfrank]

^ [gsdx] At this point, education-bashing is entirely deserved. Grammar should be the most basic pillar of education and, yet, it is almost entirely ignored nowadays (from what I seem to observe).

For example, when are you suppose to use 'it's' versus 'it is' ? or 'isn't' versus 'is not'

As far as I'm aware, isn't and is not are interchangeable, as their definitions are exactly the same. "Is not" is considered more formal.

Where did the "improper" AIN'T come from, though? I didn't look it up, but it almost sounds like Middle English or something...or even German?

Somebody else said it above, but I was also going to say that, if you question whether to apostrophize that three-letter word, ask yourself whether "IT IS" could properly work in its place. If not, no apostrophe.

It's not only here. It's everywhere, even in articles and reports written by professional reporters and proofread by professional editors. I visit Yahoo!Answers from time to time and the grammar there is appalling. They can't grasp the most simple concepts of grammar which they should know from everyday conversation: "Is it 'my father has' or 'my father have'?" They can't differentiate between plurals and possessives. I've seen so many plural words made by adding an apostrophe and then 's': word's, table's, pancake's.

It truly is frightening to me when I think how much English has changed in the past few years, and it's getting worse and worse every day.

I see this stuff all the time. The other day I was surprised to see somewhere (Huffington Post, I think) a sentence with the "possessive Eye Tee Ess" in it twice, and one of them was it's and one was its. In the SAME sentence! I see their/they're/their misuses all the time, also principle/principal. (I even saw "principle" in a prospectus of a mutual fund company!! When used as a noun, "principal" is always a tangible object; "principle" is intangible - and principle can be used only as a noun.) About ten years ago there used to be a public service announcement (on TV) about LITERACY, with the late Michael Landon speaking, which was preceded by a text something like "Michael Landon has passed on since reading this announcement, but it's message is still relevant."

Congratulations

To me, it sounds like the word is spelt / spelled with a 'd' (congradulations)

gsdx's title always makes me chuckle, because it's such pure wordplay.

The cake, at home, just after I went to my high school for the last time (for a specific end-of-year Senior ceremony), said "CONGRADULATIONS" on it. That was a mistake, of course, but somehow I found it to be VERY appropriate - because, after all, I was now a GRAD. Unintentional wordplay.

 

[gsdx]

Where did the "improper" AIN'T come from, though? I didn't look it up, but it almost sounds like Middle English or something...or even German?

Well, I looked it up. It's been around since 1706 and was originally an English contraction of 'am not'. By the early 1800s, though, it had expanded to being a contraction of 'is not' and 'are not' as well.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ain't

 

[Telstra]

One thing that really annoys me is the use of a comma to join two complete sentences, it amazes me the number of times I see people do that.

;-)

Seriously though, as much as I love technology and how accessible it is now to so many people, it allows people who may not be as skilled at writing to publish themselves. It's not just universities that have access to the Internet anymore. Plus, social media has made it very easy to post things quickly; therefore, people may not take much care in writing well-thought-out sentences.

I'm all for helping people to learn and communicate, but it seems people have no interest at all in bettering themselves. I seemed to grasp the rules of English very easily, so I don't know how hard it is for others.

I do that to short sentences to make the sentence longer.

Example:
This is one, that is two ...

 

[skinIsIn]

In this thread - native speakers with more problems than [STRIKE]me[/STRIKE] I

Isn't that an example of hyper-correction?!
Like "This is she," instead of "This is her?"

Sometimes it has its advantages to have a grammar infested mother tongue

oops....but don't even think of testing my German first person, second person. Epic fail for me.....

I once tried to tackle the daunting conjugations, numerous tenses, maddening autochthonous vocabulary of Die Hochdeutsche Sprache one cold winter, long ago...never again!

We've never done that as far as I'm aware. In Canada, 'government' is a singular noun, so it has always been 'the government has'. Another rule I haven't figured out yet is in the Harry Potter series when they play quidditch and Madam Hooch announces, "Gryffindor win!!"

It's Lady Thatcher's (RIP) fault! "We are a grandmother," and all that. Only the Torries would feel the Royal "we" would apply to "her Majesty's government!"

Yeah, I know. Some things change. At one point in my life, that is the type of nonsense up with which I would not put.

Lovingly misattributed to the Right Honourable Lord Winston Churchill!

As seen below:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/famous-quotations-and-stories

"Up with which I will not put" (Apocryphal)

"This is the kind of tedious [sometimes "pedantic"] nonsense up with which I will not put!"

—Alleged marginal note by Churchill, 27 February 1944, to a priggish civil servant's memo objecting to the ending of a sentences with prepositions. The New York Timesversion reported that the Prime Minister underscored “up” heavily.

The source are a cable reports by The New York Times and Chicago Tribune, 28 February 1944. The Yale Book of Quotations quotes The Wall Street Journal of 30 September 1942 which in turn quoted an undated article in The Strand Magazine: "When a memorandum passed round a certain Government department, one young pedant scribbled a postscript drawing attention to the fact that the sentence ended with a preposition, which caused the original writer to circulate another memorandum complaining that the anonymous postscript was 'offensive impertinence, up with which I will not put.'" Verdict: An invented phrase put in Churchill’s mouth.

 

[SaskGuy]

What do you expect, they learn everything on computers now, and they're growing up in a world where they don't even have to think for themselves. Just type it up on the computer, and let the spell checker deal with it. Then there's that stupid texting lingo that younger people still use, even if they have a full keyboard and no character limit! I bet 20 years from now, people won't even know how to write.

 

[guyfromNY]

I have two nieces that have both said "on accident".... I told them I would rip their hearts out if I ever heard it again.