|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 18, 2019 12:18:14 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? I may have missed the post where it states why my use of OF instead of HAVE was incorrect. Are all the grammar police criticising and getting worked up about something which in the grand scheme of things does not matter? If none of you understood my post because of the words of and have then there is no hope for the human race |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050 
|
Post by middyman on Sept 18, 2019 12:30:03 GMT
Of and have, are pronounced very similarly in many regional dialects, hence the swapping of the two in the written language. đœ That may be an explanation but it is not an excuse. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 18, 2019 12:35:44 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. Linguistic exactitude is perceived as snobbish by some. Doesn't mean this is correct in the eyes of all. Linguistic inexactitude is seen as lax by some. Doesn't mean this are !!!?? correct in the eyes of all. You have to remember that some people don't read papers like the gruniad because they don't understand the words used, because they lacked or did not take up the educational opportunities to learn them. On the other hand you will have people who use as many obscure words as possible to show of their eruditness. Current English is unusual in that we are in a time where spelling is set but spoken language is changing. Historically written English allowed more flexibility. Maybe written English should be updated and made more phonetic and easier for all to use. đœ |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 18, 2019 12:44:22 GMT
This problem of âhaveâ and âofâ has arisen because of the contraction of âwould haveâ to âwouldâveâ in speech. I cannot believe that this error does not occur in school work. So why do teachers not pick it up and correct it? I remember when at primary school, and so a long time ago, a girl asked the teacher how to spell âsmorningâ. The teacher was puzzled and asked for context. The answer was âThe smorningâ! These sorts of errors do creep in but competent teachers stamp them out. âHave/ofâ is particularly prevalent however.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 18, 2019 13:07:19 GMT
This problem of âhaveâ and âofâ has arisen because of the contraction of âwould haveâ to âwouldâveâ in speech. I cannot believe that this error does not occur in school work. So why do teachers not pick it up and correct it? I remember when at primary school, and so a long time ago, a girl asked the teacher how to spell âsmorningâ. The teacher was puzzled and asked for context. The answer was âThe smorningâ! These sorts of errors do creep in but competent teachers stamp them out. âHave/ofâ is particularly prevalent however. Why is it wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Sept 18, 2019 13:13:48 GMT
This problem of âhaveâ and âofâ has arisen because of the contraction of âwould haveâ to âwouldâveâ in speech. I cannot believe that this error does not occur in school work. So why do teachers not pick it up and correct it? I remember when at primary school, and so a long time ago, a girl asked the teacher how to spell âsmorningâ. The teacher was puzzled and asked for context. The answer was âThe smorningâ! These sorts of errors do creep in but competent teachers stamp them out. âHave/ofâ is particularly prevalent however. I used to write this incorrectly all the time at primary school, because so many people used to say it as if it were two separate words, ie. they'd leave a small gap in between the "would" and the "'ve" when speaking. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Sept 18, 2019 13:29:38 GMT
This problem of âhaveâ and âofâ has arisen because of the contraction of âwould haveâ to âwouldâveâ in speech. I cannot believe that this error does not occur in school work. So why do teachers not pick it up and correct it? I remember when at primary school, and so a long time ago, a girl asked the teacher how to spell âsmorningâ. The teacher was puzzled and asked for context. The answer was âThe smorningâ! These sorts of errors do creep in but competent teachers stamp them out. âHave/ofâ is particularly prevalent however. Why is it wrong? Why is what wrong - have/of or The smorning? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Sept 18, 2019 17:18:40 GMT
This problem of âhaveâ and âofâ has arisen because of the contraction of âwould haveâ to âwouldâveâ in speech. I cannot believe that this error does not occur in school work. So why do teachers not pick it up and correct it? I remember when at primary school, and so a long time ago, a girl asked the teacher how to spell âsmorningâ. The teacher was puzzled and asked for context. The answer was âThe smorningâ! These sorts of errors do creep in but competent teachers stamp them out. âHave/ofâ is particularly prevalent however. Why is it wrong? Because the sentence requires a verb to make sense. Have is a verb. Of is a preposition. If I were to enquire whether you are in possession of a book I would say "Do you have a book?" "Do you of a book" would make no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Sept 18, 2019 19:22:06 GMT
As someone with a degree in Linguistics, this type of error does grate with me; however I think we should let it drop now as the subject of this thread is "TV coverage of elections", in case we needed to be reminded  |
|
|
|
Post by gasman2019 on Sept 18, 2019 19:31:56 GMT
As someone with a degree in Linguistics, this type of error does grate with me; however I think we should let it drop now as the subject of this thread is "TV coverage of elections", in case we needed to be reminded should it be "TV coverage have elections" |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Sept 18, 2019 19:52:56 GMT
We now resume our regular programming
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 18, 2019 21:04:58 GMT
A still from BBC Two's coverage of the first woman Prime Minister arriving in Downing Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 18, 2019 23:42:45 GMT
A still from BBC Two's coverage of the first woman Prime Minister arriving in Downing Street. You haven't included a picture or a link, but I'm guessing that you are or were intending to refer to Sirimavo Bandaranaike. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 19, 2019 4:50:50 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. Since maths arguably is a language, yes you can compare the two.
To be pedantic, there are mathematical systems where 2+1 does not equal 3. There aren't many circumstances where they would be useful, and there are slightly fewer circumstances which would be interesting, but they do exist. Furthermore, maths certainly does change over time as we discover/invent [delete according to preference] new parts of it, though basic arithmetic is probably the area of maths which changes the least.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,818
|
Post by john07 on Sept 24, 2019 13:03:05 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. Since maths arguably is a language, yes you can compare the two. To be pedantic, there are mathematical systems where 2+1 does not equal 3. There aren't many circumstances where they would be useful, and there are slightly fewer circumstances which would be interesting, but they do exist. Furthermore, maths certainly does change over time as we discover/invent [delete according to preference] new parts of it, though basic arithmetic is probably the area of maths which changes the least.
Very true. Take geometry, for example. Two fundamental principles are that parallel lines never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. They are true on a plain surface but not of the surface of a globe. For example the surface of Earth. There parallel lines at the equator will meet at the poles and the sum of angles on a triangle will not add up to 180. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 4, 2019 11:08:46 GMT
BBC have announced that Rick Wakeman's 'Arthur' will be returning as the election night theme tune.
|
|
msc
Non-Aligned
Posts: 910
|
Post by msc on Nov 4, 2019 11:20:18 GMT
Have most of the BBC election night shows from YouTube disappeared? I watched 1997 and 2001 off David's channel, but 2005 and 2010 (and the 80s ones) appear to be MIA.
|
|
|
|
Post by heslingtonian on Nov 4, 2019 11:25:59 GMT
No Dimbleby but âArthurâ is apparently returning for the Beebâs coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 4, 2019 11:26:14 GMT
BBC have announced that Rick Wakeman's 'Arthur' will be returning as the election night theme tune. |
|
|
|
Post by pragmaticidealist on Nov 4, 2019 11:29:34 GMT
No Dimbleby but âArthurâ is apparently returning for the Beebâs coverage. Huw Edwards will be the main presenter. First time since October 1974 that it has been someone other than Dimbleby. Jeremy Vine will once again be the swingometer person, as I'm sure everyone will be utterly delighted to hear. |
|
