J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,800 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 17, 2019 19:48:49 GMT
Well an important point there is that a GE was expected in 2005 anyway, rather than Brown having to design a rationale for a "snap" poll. (and of course, that coming to grief was when it all started to go wrong) Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. HAVE HAVE HAVE HAVE
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 17, 2019 20:36:27 GMT
Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. HAVE HAVE HAVE HAVE How on earth do people come to the conclusion that a preposition can replace a verb in any sentence ? |
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 17, 2019 22:34:32 GMT
Biggest mistake by Brown was not holding that snap election, I still believe he would of won the election with a reduced majority (10-20 seats), but he would of had a mandate to govern. Plus by 2012 the green shoots of recovery were taking place and the economy would of been improving, which would of given Brown or another Labour leader (D or E Milliband) a chance to hold onto power or lose well enough to bounce back for 2017. HAVE HAVE HAVE HAVE
Worst thing about social media is the grammar police. Instead of reading an article or passage and understanding the premise / substance they look for grammatical errors. You know what I meant, dont be a dick about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 17, 2019 22:51:22 GMT
You didn't make a mistake of grammar. You made a clear mistaken use of a word, substituting a near homophone. And complaining that someone else has pointed out your mistake makes you look like a dick, as well as being ignorant about the English language.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,800
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 18, 2019 0:51:36 GMT
Worst thing about social media is the grammar police. Instead of reading an article or passage and understanding the premise / substance they look for grammatical errors. You know what I meant, dont be a dick about it. BUT YOUR READERS DIDN'T. Telepathy is fiction.
It's not looking for gramatical errors, is not being able to understand the substance because you trip over the obstructive block and fly headlong down the stairs and have to go scanning back through the sentence to try and work out WTF it's supposed to mean. And it's not as if it's even a spelling mistake, or a typo - as evidenced by it being there FOUR times - or a odd writing style like Carlton's hyphenated numbers (I keep expecting to-day and to-morrow from him). It's just plain destroying the message you're trying to get across. A lot of reading is pattern matching. "of" looks nothing at all like "have", has absolutely no similarity or relatedness of meaning, you are breaking the flow of understanding as you're forcing the reader out of "reading" mode and into "interpretation" mode, and then into "rewriting" mode to work what's supposed to be there.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 18, 2019 6:12:36 GMT
Of and have, are pronounced very similarly in many regional dialects, hence the swapping of the two in the written language. 👽 Of all the issues that separate pedants from the rest of the human race, this is one of the rare few where I am inclined to side with the pedants. Writing Of for Have is one of those where the writer shows a real ignorance of the meaning of the words, and yes words have meanings, they are not just sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 18, 2019 7:16:56 GMT
Of all the issues that separate pedants from the rest of the human race, this is one of the rare few where I am inclined to side with the pedants. Writing Of for Have is one of those where the writer shows a real ignorance of the meaning of the words, and yes words have meanings, they are not just sounds. You are correct they mean different things, but it only matters if you are interested in being any good at writing 'proper standardised' English. Many are not interested or bothered in the slightest. 👽 Sad but probably true that there are lots of people out there who claim to have opinions on things but when they write it down have no interest in the meaning of what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 18, 2019 8:34:27 GMT
Of and have, are pronounced very similarly in many regional dialects, hence the swapping of the two in the written language. 👽 There is no getting away from the outright fact that it is the grossest solecism and equivalent to in arithmetic stating that 2+1=3 and that 3+1=2 because the individual components look and sound similar. This error is not one of grammar nor syntax, but one of not caring, sloth and poor attention to absolute basics. A person who is careless of his language is careless for everything, as it betrays a 'couldn't care less', 'don't want to know' attitude that will invade other realms. The error is so gross as to suggest Englsh might be a second language, as it betrays a failure to understand how words work at all and why there is word order, why there is spelling, and why we utilise devices like conjugation and modification. We can all forgive and overlook simple error in simple cases where people show a willingness to correct or confess to poor typing or simple error. But to argue the point about making gross solecism acceptable is not to be forgiven. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 18, 2019 8:57:01 GMT
Worst thing about social media is the grammar police. Instead of reading an article or passage and understanding the premise / substance they look for grammatical errors. You know what I meant, dont be a dick about it. BUT YOUR READERS DIDN'T. Telepathy is fiction.
It's not looking for gramatical errors, is not being able to understand the substance because you trip over the obstructive block and fly headlong down the stairs and have to go scanning back through the sentence to try and work out WTF it's supposed to mean. And it's not as if it's even a spelling mistake, or a typo - as evidenced by it being there FOUR times - or a odd writing style like Carlton's hyphenated numbers (I keep expecting to-day and to-morrow from him). It's just plain destroying the message you're trying to get across. A lot of reading is pattern matching. "of" looks nothing at all like "have", has absolutely no similarity or relatedness of meaning, you are breaking the flow of understanding as you're forcing the reader out of "reading" mode and into "interpretation" mode, and then into "rewriting" mode to work what's supposed to be there.
I am sorry about the effect of my hyphenated numbers. Yes it is part of 'my style'. I wrote and devised a series of protocols for typing units to inject a standardisation of output in type when the firm went from secretary/typist in each branch to remote units working from tapes. I was chosen because I was doing nothing very important at that time and had been used on Forms Design and impressed some one by having my Gowers, the OED and Hazlitt and Fowler on my desk. After that brief experience in the 70s I constructed my own set of protocols for spacing, punctuation, order, capitals, use of brackets and quotes.....and so on. I still play with it from time to time. It is a real interest. Gross misuse of English does have a bad effect on me. |
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 18, 2019 8:57:09 GMT
Of and have, are pronounced very similarly in many regional dialects, hence the swapping of the two in the written language. 👽 There is no getting away from the outright fact that it is the grossest solecism and equivalent to in arithmetic stating that 2+1=3 and that 3+1=2 because the individual components look and sound similar. This error is not one of grammar nor syntax, but one of not caring, sloth and poor attention to absolute basics. A person who is careless of his language is careless for everything, as it betrays a 'couldn't care less', 'don't want to know' attitude that will invade other realms. The error is so gross as to suggest Englsh might be a second language, as it betrays a failure to understand how words work at all and why there is word order, why there is spelling, and why we utilise devices like conjugation and modification. We can all forgive and overlook simple error in simple cases where people show a willingness to correct or confess to poor typing or simple error. But to argue the point about making gross solecism acceptable is not to be forgiven. Sorry Carlton, but you cannot compare maths to language. Language can change over time and will adapt with the times. Arithmetic will never change and 2+1=3 will always be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 18, 2019 9:09:40 GMT
There is no getting away from the outright fact that it is the grossest solecism and equivalent to in arithmetic stating that 2+1=3 and that 3+1=2 because the individual components look and sound similar. This error is not one of grammar nor syntax, but one of not caring, sloth and poor attention to absolute basics. A person who is careless of his language is careless for everything, as it betrays a 'couldn't care less', 'don't want to know' attitude that will invade other realms. The error is so gross as to suggest Englsh might be a second language, as it betrays a failure to understand how words work at all and why there is word order, why there is spelling, and why we utilise devices like conjugation and modification. We can all forgive and overlook simple error in simple cases where people show a willingness to correct or confess to poor typing or simple error. But to argue the point about making gross solecism acceptable is not to be forgiven. Sorry Carlton, but you cannot compare maths to language. Language can change over time and will adapt with the times. Arithmetic will never change and 2+1=3 will always be the case. Quite wrong I am afraid old chap. Both are artificial constructs to efficiently convey precise meaning. There is a modern pretence in English that precision and construction do not matter, but they do and they define a divide in the way we perceive the person as well as in the perception of what he says. One cannot abuse aithmetic in the same way without producing meaningless gibberish, but English is a flexible and less precise language in order to permit finesse and nuance, NOT to cover up ignorance and lack of facility. Your error is not a modern acceptable use through the mutation and morphing to suit a need at all, but a gross raw horrid mistake caused by not knowing how the language works and frankly it appears in not caring? That is just not good enough. |
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 18, 2019 9:25:52 GMT
Sorry Carlton, but you cannot compare maths to language. Language can change over time and will adapt with the times. Arithmetic will never change and 2+1=3 will always be the case. Quite wrong I am afraid old chap. Both are artificial constructs to efficiently convey precise meaning. There is a modern pretence in English that precision and construction do not matter, but they do and they define a divide in the way we perceive the person as well as in the perception of what he says. One cannot abuse aithmetic in the same way without producing meaningless gibberish, but English is a flexible and less precise language in order to permit finesse and nuance, NOT to cover up ignorance and lack of facility. Your error is not a modern acceptable use through the mutation and morphing to suit a need at all, but a gross raw horrid mistake caused by not knowing how the language works and frankly it appears in not caring? That is just not good enough.  We will have to agree to disagree as frankly I think you are wrong and part of the grammar/language snobs. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Sept 18, 2019 9:25:55 GMT
Sorry Carlton, but you cannot compare maths to language. Language can change over time and will adapt with the times. Arithmetic will never change and 2+1=3 will always be the case. Quite wrong I am afraid old chap. Both are artificial constructs to efficiently convey precise meaning. There is a modern pretence in English that precision and construction do not matter, but they do and they define a divide in the way we perceive the person as well as in the perception of what he says. One cannot abuse aithmetic in the same way without producing meaningless gibberish, but English is a flexible and less precise language in order to permit finesse and nuance, NOT to cover up ignorance and lack of facility. Your error is not a modern acceptable use through the mutation and morphing to suit a need at all, but a gross raw horrid mistake caused by not knowing how the language works and frankly it appears in not caring? That is just not good enough.  The influence of American use of the English language is considerable |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 18, 2019 9:35:00 GMT
This has been a very dispiriting exercise in that some people can be so foolish and stubborn as to argue in favour of gross error and then to accuse others of snobbery for trying to combat it.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Sept 18, 2019 10:16:11 GMT
There is no getting away from the outright fact that it is the grossest solecism and equivalent to in arithmetic stating that 2+1=3 and that 3+1=2 because the individual components look and sound similar. This error is not one of grammar nor syntax, but one of not caring, sloth and poor attention to absolute basics. A person who is careless of his language is careless for everything, as it betrays a 'couldn't care less', 'don't want to know' attitude that will invade other realms. The error is so gross as to suggest Englsh might be a second language, as it betrays a failure to understand how words work at all and why there is word order, why there is spelling, and why we utilise devices like conjugation and modification. We can all forgive and overlook simple error in simple cases where people show a willingness to correct or confess to poor typing or simple error. But to argue the point about making gross solecism acceptable is not to be forgiven. I suggest we all revert to writing in standard Olde English spellings. (A suggestion in tune with our Brexit times) 👽 In which case should we male members of the Forum add Esq. after our usernames in order to appease the Lord President? I will just throw in to those correcting spelling and grammar, the last time I piled in and criticised along such lines I happened to pick someone on a site who pretty much everybody but me knew to be dyslexic. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Sept 18, 2019 10:40:59 GMT
I suggest we all revert to writing in standard Olde English spellings. (A suggestion in tune with our Brexit times) 👽 In which case should we male members of the Forum add Esq. after our usernames in order to appease the Lord President? I will just throw in to those correcting spelling and grammar, the last time I piled in and criticised along such lines I happened to pick someone on a site who pretty much everybody but me knew to be dyslexic. Well, I feel for you over the case with the dyslexic and I recall nearly being banned for life from here on making a remark in total ignorance of your own conditions!!! One must not use Esq after a user name or a nick name or an avatar. That would be a solecism. You might care to use it with your real name when writing to the Lord President but imagine you would prefer not to? I always considered Esq to be a courtesy addition to the mode of address on an envelope for males to whom it might matter: a species now rapidly dying out with my peer group. It was used by business houses in the mode of address to customers (or more likely then....clients) on the assumption that they were the head of a family and thus a householder and probable house owner and thus to an extent a land owner. The pivotal nature probably being a man owning land, a house, a bank account and entitled as a ratepayer of such-and-such size to be an elector. In Italy that sort of courtesy fiction continues with the mode of address Dottore to any well dressed, well mannered and well spoken man; or any man in what is perceived to be a good job; or any man two rungs above one in an institution or business house. And the formality of addressing colleagues in France Monsieur and shaking their hand at the commencement of each day. They are all signs of simple civility coupled with a mutual acknowledgment of a degree of status consciousness. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,009
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 18, 2019 10:49:44 GMT
The simple reality is that "of" and "have" mean completely different things, so using them interchangeably should *not* be acceptable.
This is really not the same thing as errors in spelling/grammar/syntax, which we all commit on occasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 18, 2019 11:36:32 GMT
Worst thing about social media is the grammar police. Instead of reading an article or passage and understanding the premise / substance they look for grammatical errors. You know what I meant, dont be a dick about it. It is not an error of grammar. It is the wrong word and leaves the sentence meaningless. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 18, 2019 11:39:14 GMT
Of and have, are pronounced very similarly in many regional dialects, hence the swapping of the two in the written language. 👽 So are to, too and two - doesn't mean they can be interchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 18, 2019 11:48:38 GMT
I used to use lend and borrow interchangeably.
(Because in my first language we only have a single word - using to and from to distinguish the two actions - and assumed lend and borrow were synonyms for benthyg.)
My wife pointed out the error.
I now use them correctly.
Why is it so difficult for others to accept that interchanging have with of is incorrect? And simply to correct the error?
|
|
