• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Grammar help Please

Beerina said:
Thank you.

Similarly, stop using "and/or" in speech and writing unless you are discussing logic or computer programming.

Nobody did this before computers. In ordinary parlance, "or" already means and/or.

For that matter, "and/or"-sayers, to be technically correct, you should say "and/xor", which reduces to "or" anyway. "And/or" is thus always wrong.
Click to expand...

Japanese has a word that corresponds to and/or and a word that corresponds to xor. I don't know if I agree with your claim though that "or" means and/or in ordinary parlance. Maybe depending on the context.
 
angrysoba said:
Hi there, so the corpora results show that "either side of" is more common than "each side of" on either side of the Atlantic?

That's interesting, and I wanted to do a corpus search myself. Just out of interest, how did you have access to the corpus data? I think I have tried in the past to use the BNC and not been able to, although I did have access to the Birmingham Corpus once.
Click to expand...

Google also has a tool:

http://bit.ly/1GDVRa1
 
Beerina said:
Thank you.

Similarly, stop using "and/or" in speech and writing unless you are discussing logic or computer programming.

Nobody did this before computers. In ordinary parlance, "or" already means and/or.

For that matter, "and/or"-sayers, to be technically correct, you should say "and/xor", which reduces to "or" anyway. "And/or" is thus always wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Consider "You can have pie and/or cake for dessert." This implies that having both pie and cake is a possible choice, where saying "You can have pie or cake for dessert" does not.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Because "roses grew along the path" could mean they were planted in the middle of the path? And, "roses grew beside the path" does not specify that they grew on both sides of the path? :duck:
Click to expand...


Let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks! :D
 
Beerina said:
Thank you.

Similarly, stop using "and/or" in speech and writing unless you are discussing logic or computer programming.
Nobody did this before computers. In ordinary parlance, "or" already means and/or.
For that matter, "and/or"-sayers, to be technically correct, you should say "and/xor", which reduces to "or" anyway. "And/or" is thus always wrong.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Perhaps in you encountered the usage infrequently, but "and/or" has been used for quite a lot longer than we've had computers and common (as in well-known and/or well-read) discussions on programming.

In fact, not being a computer geek, I don't associate "and/or" with computers at all, but with an attempt at clarity in expressing yourself. There are specific uses for "and/or", as mentioned above.
 
Fellow Traveler said:
Another Grammar question: can anyone name a solid reason for not ending sentences with prepositions?
Click to expand...

Ending a sentence with an extraneous preposition is generally considered wrong. But so is adding unnecessary prepositions in other positions in the sentence.

Correct sentences can definitely end in prepositions. Examples of constructions that must end with a preposition are some sentences that include phrasal verbs (verbs built with prepositions). 'She fell over' is an example.
 
Pianoro said:
Ending a sentence with an extraneous preposition is generally considered wrong. But so is adding unnecessary prepositions in other positions in the sentence.

Correct sentences can definitely end in prepositions. Examples of constructions that must end with a preposition are some sentences that include phrasal verbs (verbs built with prepositions). 'She fell over' is an example.
Click to expand...

Hilited the key word. (Not that you weren't already pointing it out, but it needs emphasis.)

e.g. Where are you going to? The "to" is extraneous (not to mention painful to the ear).

Counter: What are you up to? Neither "to" nor "up" is extraneous.
(ditto "What's up?")

e.g. (To a person on an unknown beast) What's that you're riding on? The "on" is extraneous.

Counter: (To a person sitting on something weird...) What's that you're sitting on? The "on" is not extraneous, it's necessary to complete the question/thought.


And, of course, there's the old Southern Belle joke.

Southern Belle: Hi, I'm Misty and I'm from Savannah. Where are you from?
Yankee Snob: I'm Casandra and I'm from a place that teaches us not to end a sentence in a preposition.
SB: Oh, sorry! Meant to say, "Where are you from, bitch?"
 
Foolmewunz said:
e.g. Where are you going to? The "to" is extraneous (not to mention painful to the ear).
Click to expand...
I'll give you extraneous, but it's certainly not painful.

e.g. (To a person on an unknown beast) What's that you're riding on? The "on" is extraneous.

Counter: (To a person sitting on something weird...) What's that you're sitting on? The "on" is not extraneous, it's necessary to complete the question/thought.
Click to expand...
Either both 'ons' are necessary to complete the thought or neither is. I agree that in standard English, you mostly use a preposition with sitting (Although you can sit a horse), not so much with riding, but I can't see how you can make a logical necessity out of it.
 
Guybrush Threepwood said:
Either both 'ons' are necessary to complete the thought or neither is. I agree that in standard English, you mostly use a preposition with sitting (Although you can sit a horse), not so much with riding, but I can't see how you can make a logical necessity out of it.
Click to expand...

It looks necessary to me. "To ride" isn't a phrasal verb, while "to sit on" is. "What's that you're sitting?" makes no sense in this context. But FMW already explained this. Phrasal verbs depend on the preposition to give meaning.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Hilited the key word. (Not that you weren't already pointing it out, but it needs emphasis.)

e.g. Where are you going to? The "to" is extraneous (not to mention painful to the ear).

Counter: What are you up to? Neither "to" nor "up" is extraneous.
(ditto "What's up?")

e.g. (To a person on an unknown beast) What's that you're riding on? The "on" is extraneous.

Counter: (To a person sitting on something weird...) What's that you're sitting on? The "on" is not extraneous, it's necessary to complete the question/thought.


And, of course, there's the old Southern Belle joke.

Southern Belle: Hi, I'm Misty and I'm from Savannah. Where are you from?
Yankee Snob: I'm Casandra and I'm from a place that teaches us not to end a sentence in a preposition.
SB: Oh, sorry! Meant to say, "Where are you from, bitch?"
Click to expand...
I see no reason to write differently to what I speak, like, innit.
 
I would just like to add in here my continued annoyance with people who insist upon writing and saying 'an historic event' instead of 'a historic event', as if we are still back in the day and they are actually saying in their head it was 'an istoric event it were!'

Grrr grrr!

PS: Being from the U.K is this more a thing over here? Do Americans say 'an historic'?
 
Stee said:
I would just like to add in here my continued annoyance with people who insist upon writing and saying 'an historic event' instead of 'a historic event', as if we are still back in the day and they are actually saying in their head it was 'an istoric event it were!'

Grrr grrr!

PS: Being from the U.K is this more a thing over here? Do Americans say 'an historic'?
Click to expand...

I'd grant that "an 'istoric" trips off the tongue slightly more easily than "a historic", but I don't like it. I blame the Cockneys, coming over 'ere, stealing our h'apostrophes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom