Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

Pain in the English offers proofreading services for short-form writing such as press releases, job applications, or marketing copy. 24 hour turnaround. Learn More

jayles the unwoven

Joined: June 3, 2014
Comments posted: 171
Votes received: 70

Questions Submitted

Are proverbs dying?

June 30, 2014

subwait

June 24, 2014

Recent Comments

a) "you're" is short for "you are" - "I hope you are well " sounds ok so the answere is "you're".
"Your" sounds the same but indicates possession (compare we - our / you - your) ; "I hope your health is ok" is correct.

b) Who is seeking? Answer: "our client"; singular or plural? = singular; therefore "is" is correct. Thus either: "Our client is seeking" or "Our clients are seeking".

c) "Our client seeks" is fine, just perhaps a little more formal in this context.

jayles the unwoven February 5, 2016, 1:11pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Some people of a certain generation and background (like me) can recall being told at school NEVER to use this so-called "ugly" (ie lower-class) word.
Quite why the word "get" was deemed bad was never explained, and that indeed is the question.
'Get' has been in English an awful long time and is widely used:

etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=get

Nonetheless, for examinations/academic writing I do still teach my students to consider using a more precise word such as "obtain/receive/become", if only to demonstrate a wider lexis.

However there are phrases where "get" is the only natural choice:
"They became married" would sound quite odd.

I would suggest there is little wrong with sentences like "The hard disk got erased by mistake" either, where get=become befits the situation.

As to why "people" use "get" so widely, well I think it might have something to do with it being somehow harder to formulate the sentence without "get" in some situations. But who are these people? Be not peeved, life is too short.

jayles the unwoven January 30, 2016, 1:20pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Subjunctive with inversion tends to mean "if" or "though" or "whether" as in:
"Yes, dearest, it is an awful moment to have to give up one's innocent child to a man, be he ever so kind and good..."
"As it might be, perhaps, were I a woman, ... " (12th night)

see also :
http://random-idea-english.blogspot.co.nz/2011/...

jayles the unwoven January 30, 2016, 12:54pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@HS Doubtless you are not alone. I must say I despair of modern English - I notice people no longer pray like they used to - whatever happened to :
"Oure fadir that art in heuenes, halewid be thi name; thi kyndoom come to; be thi wille don in erthe as in heuene: gyue to us this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce; and forgyue to us oure dettis, as we forgyuen to oure gettouris; and lede us not in to temptacioun, but delyuere us fro yuel."

How times have changed!

jayles the unwoven January 9, 2016, 3:18am

2 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

comman format would be: January 16th, 2016
see date formats at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...

jayles the unwoven January 7, 2016, 9:35pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Overhead yesterday in a coffee shop:
Customer: Excuse me; I was wondering if I could trouble you for a side salad.
Waitress: Side salad?

Slight mismatch of styles!

jayles the unwoven November 26, 2015, 7:01pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@WW Sorry, I assumed 'cacography' was just a made-up word - it's all Greek to me ;}

jayles the unwoven November 20, 2015, 1:09pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

The exact origin of the continuous aspect in English is debatable. The theory that I find most useful is that it corresponds to the dialect German eg: "Sie war am Buegeln" = She was an-ironing. This exists in English in phrases like:
"A-hunting we wil go"; "The cocks were a-crowing"; and so on.
The "a-" prefix was, as I understand it, originally a preposition as in "asleep", "awake", "abed", and so forth. In time the prefix fell by the wayside to form the continuous aspect, but the meaning of being in the process/activity remained.
The reason I favor this explanation is that it makes sense of the so-called "present perfect continuous" - "What have you been doing? I've been hunting. (cf I've been a-hunting.) The root idea behind the continuous is still to this day about being engaged in an activity or process.
Thus if one could say:
"How's the burger, Rastus?" "I'm a-loving it"
then it would all make sense. That it does not quite - as "loving" is not really an activity unless it involves bodily movement - demonstrates the underlying meaning of the continuous.

jayles the unwoven November 17, 2015, 1:07pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

The whole thrust of the original question is misguided. Why do we need "a word" for "intentionally incorrect spellling". Surely the "word" is "intentionally incorrect spelling" if that is what one means. Why bury the meaning in some obscure word that few know or understand? Where does this mentality come from? We seem to do it all the time; for example "arachnophobia"? Who are we kidding? It's just very Stephen Fry and snobby. What's so wrong with "fear of spiders" - or even "spider-dread" or something that a normal person would understand. After all, isn't language for communicating with normal people? Why make it so esoteric?

jayles the unwoven November 17, 2015, 12:42pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@HS Why are you resorting to Greek? Why do you think that we must find and borrow a Greek/Latin word in order to make up a "proper" word for something? Why not just use an English expression like "willful misspelling" or something?
BTW "cacography" would just mean "bad writing" IIRC - 'kakos' means 'bad' and 'graphein' is to write cf 'cacophony' = bad sound

jayles the unwoven November 17, 2015, 11:09am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

BTW when I started skool (and dinos roamed the earth) one of the beginner classes was named "2B", so we said:
2B, or not 2B?
Note the different pron!

jayles the unwoven November 15, 2015, 2:59pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

There are three choices: question mark, period (full stop), or exclamation mark, depending on the intonation required.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/...

Punctuation is there to show how the sentence is to be read, denoting pauses, intonation, interpolations and so forth.
Many rhetorical questions need a rising intonation at the end, so a question mark is appropriate. Sometimes a falling intonation is sought with a period (full stop). Try saying the following out loud and notice how the intonation changes:
To be, or not to be ?
To be, or not to be !
To be, or not to be.
To be or, not to be ??

jayles the unwoven November 15, 2015, 2:52pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

It seems like a story written as a converstion, breathy and slightly disjointed, with double-nested interpolations. The long interpolation all the way from the first dash to the colon, rather undermines the contrast between "at first" and "now", so it is a bit hard to get back on track.
One could try a third dash instead of the semi-colon; or even insert "whereas" or "but"; not sure that makes it better though.

jayles the unwoven November 6, 2015, 10:04pm

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@HS if the sole criterion of "right" or "wrong" English were what falls soft or hard upon your ears, then what shall we do when you are gone?
Come, we need an more empirical measure.

jayles the unwoven November 5, 2015, 8:21am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

@HS "defeat against" also crops up, although to my ear it sounds a bit odd; the point here is that just because we have not come across a particular collocation in our own milieu or experience - that does not make it "wrong" per se. In teaching English to "foreigners" we do emphasize normal collocations like "a telltale sign", "a dead giveaway", but that does not make "a telltale giveaway" wrong, just unusual.

What in fact is the difference between a collocation and a well-worn cliche, or indeed a treasured quote from Shakespeare or KJV?

"Some candle clear burns somewhere I come by." - is this "right" or "wrong" English? (from Gerald Manley Hopkins)

If one takes on board that English has always been changing, then (whilst I admit "defeat to" would not be a phrase I would use) - then the only question is whether its current usage makes it acceptable in business/academic/media contexts i.e. is it now "standard" English? Clearly yes indeed.

jayles the unwoven November 5, 2015, 8:11am

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Dear Grumpy
1) It is not an evolution - it has been around for some time (perhaps 200 years according to Ngrams), if you would care to google "defeat to", although I could not sleuth out the actual quote.
2) If you choose to be grumpy about it, of course you will thole; if, however, you came to realise that evolution is a natural on-going process, then your tholing would lessen greatly.

jayles the unwoven November 3, 2015, 9:55pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Opinions are often stated as facts; of course statements are often just the opinion of the writer, unless quoted or otherwise.
In an academic treatise one must ask where is the evidence; was there as survey of "everyone" in this case or is the statement just wishful thinking on the part of the writer?
Sometimes journalists say or write things like "everyone here is (something or other)"; and one must wonder how many people they asked and whether the respondents reflect a proper (random) cross-section of "everyone".

There is a tradition in English academic (and business) writing to avoid the first person and not to preface every sentence with "I think that". One of the results is that opinions tend to be stated as if they are facts.

The above is of course just my own opinion. You should wonder where the evidence is.

jayles the unwoven October 28, 2015, 2:58am

1 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases:

When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e. when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...

jayles the unwoven October 25, 2015, 3:45pm

2 votes    Permalink    Report Abuse

@WW
(a) This has nothing to do with "anglish"; it is just about how Middle English came about, and in particular, why we ended up with something of a creole, rather than one language winning out with just a few hundred words borrowed, as happened in Gaul, Ireland, or indeed Hungarian under Ottoman/Turkish occupation.

(b) I don't disagree with your explanations; after all Middle English does sound like someone who learnt English as a child, but was taught French. The question is: how and when did illiterate peasants and the village blacksmith take onboard all those French borrowings? It just seems to me that, away from court and castle , words like "frith", "wlite", and "ea" may have kept on for much longer than written records would suggest. (In fact I heard "ea" in Norfork about 1960). However, short of time-travel we may never be sure!

(c) Perhaps hearing the bible read out every Sunday in Welsh (from 16th century) onwards saved that language. Perhaps all those French words in Wycliffe's translation overwrote the older English equivalents in the minds of English folk.

(d) I suppose my whole thinking is based on the assumption that borrowings from Anglo-Norman and/or French are unusually high in comparison with similar takeover situations. Perhaps in the intial phase it wasn't - it was the inroads made by "Parisian" french from the late 1200s onward which are atypical.

jayles the unwoven October 17, 2015, 8:49pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse

Just to clarify:

A) Yes OE was changing and losing inflections already.

B) In many cases the invaders impose their own tongue as the language of administration, but native languages live on more or less intact in the hills and among the peasants, at least in some areas. Eg: Spanish, Portugese in Central/South America. Latin in Western Europe. Contrast this with ME and the slaughter of OE vocabulary.

jayles the unwoven October 15, 2015, 3:13pm

0 vote    Permalink    Report Abuse