Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
is this sentence grammatically correct?
nothing Pigfoot says is ever correct.
yeah that sentence is grammatically correct.
what do scottish people know about correct grammar?
you forgot to say "scotch" for once! :p
it was 3am and i was quite drunk. i'll try harder next time.
who have replied to this
something to look forward to, then.
None is 'not one'.
can you make an argument for it being "not any" though?
Regardless of the positivity or negativity of the statement, typo is now a dicitionary added word that states its plural as 'typos'.
As such and with more than one typo being referred to, the statement should read "None of those typos were intentional."
Better still however, would be "Those typos were unintentional."
and TECHNICALLY you're correct.
However, none is generally treated differently to 'not one' now and for the sakes of clean reading, you'd use my formation.
I'd have let either pass and only the most pedantic would take issue with it.
You've never been down on my list for perfectionism in grammar though. Particularly the way you write.
the implication that sometimes typos ARE intentional.
Surely by definition a typo is accidental?
you win dude. This thread rocks.
I <3 grammar.
you should'ave said "non of those spelling mistakes was intentional".
A typo is ALWAYS accidental.
that I really like yes_ now.
Now THAT'S how you do a typo, boy.
is grammatically correct.
but you didnt.
"It ruined my life," as you were referring to something in the past.
you're not still in that house, right?
Not it has mate, just it.
It might 'sound like' that, but it's the fackts. FACKTS.
I'm going to bed.
It's accepted, generally, but not technically correct.
None is a shortened form of 'not one', as explained previously in the thread. Try reading "Not one of those typos was intentional."
Do you see?
add on "old chap" at the end as well.
"not one of those typos was intentional, old chap. what what!"
"Weird" Al Yankovic is kicking off from the proles again.
this thread makes little sense as it is.
USAGE It is sometimes held that none can take only a singular verb, never a plural verb:: none of them is coming tonight, rather than | none of them are coming tonight. There is little justification, historical or grammatical, for this view. None is descended from Old English n?n, meaning ‘not one,’ and has been used for around a thousand years with both a singular and a plural verb, depending on the context and the emphasis needed.
But the sentence in the opening post just sounds a little bit wronger and looks retarded.
i would take that to be that for the sentence given, one would use a plural verb, whereas if say, one were asked 'which is the person that made the typo' and it were none of the people suggested one would say 'it was none of them'.
but that might just be me. its all about common sense really i think.
of implying that one sentence construction can be 'right' and another 'wrong' when either is perfectly comprehensible.
is 'none of them typos were intentional' less valid because it's in northern dialect?
the myth of 'correct' grammar is a fairly retarded post-colonial one, derived from too many rich, well armed people who'd studied Latin at school. Latin being a dead language has rules which can be imposed on it because all original latin writing can never change.
because the above people thought they were the dogs for having learned this dead language (which incidentally i have also learned) they decided that their version of english must also be the most 'correct' and therefore all books on correct grammar would be based on how they spoke and other 'regional' variations were wrong and based on the people who spoke them being basically too stupid to speak how they did.
This attitude then spilt over into somewhat more insidious notions of intelligence when certain mid 20th century psychologists 'proved' that black people living in ghettoes in america were less intelligent based on, amongst other things, how they spoke and their ability to answer logic puzzles and IQ testing questions which were posed in a dialect (queen's english) which they basically had no experience of and found hard to understand.
that's why grammar fascists basically are fascists.
END OF THREAD.
about the fascism bit. I was just making the point that correct grammar is basically made up.
it's like saying there's a correct way to play music.
Therefore some standard understanding of what the other person is saying is what all language is built on. To say that language can't be "right" is to say that the dictionary is a book that closes down possibilities for meaning rather than providing it.
Which is a sound philosophical argument and quite interesting in itself. But the possibilities provided by language thus far seem pretty good to me really.
Because music is not of it's essence about specific communication. So it does not lose it raison d'etre if the listener doesn't "understand" it. A sentence intended to communicate something that doesn't adhere to accepted forms of language will not be understood, and is therefore self defeating.
Communication doesn't always have to be the aim. Come and see Team Brick February 3rd to see what I mean by that.
"implying that one sentence construction can be 'right' and another 'wrong' when either is perfectly comprehensible."
'perfectly comprehensible' being the important bit. as long as it's not a barrier to communication the variations within one language can only make things richer for everyone.
and the dictionary is a book that explains words with more words. there's no starting point to enter from outside. you already have to understand something to understand anything.
and whilst any individual hard copy dictionary can be limiting 'The Dictionary' evolves just as language does. new words appear in it all the time and old ones are removed.
And where is this going to come from if not some centralised idea of what language is and how it is used?
is organic and is inherent to the language system. the people in the communities that share the language can understand each other. it doesn't need to be 'administrated' in some way. or worse dictated. it just happens. it's only when we get onto foreign languages that we need experts to help us learn them.
when he was small my little brother used to say 'my mind's gone out of my head' when he meant he'd forgotten something. but we understood him. even though taken literally it was nonsense.
Then the rest doesn't really matter, because language is after all basically about communicating. So if the communication takes place then it's fulfilling it's function.
But I also think that having a correct way to use language is a good thing. I'm still pondering on exactly why. I do enjoy nuance in language and there are massive differences in kind of... I don't know. Gracefulness?
I can see where this argument heads. It heads down to form vs function, i.e. a roughly-hewn cup and a china cup both hold your tea, so why would you prefer the china one... but that distastefully suggests that non-Q.E. dialects are in some way inferior, which is not something I believe in the slightest. Although many do.
Perhaps this argument is specific to England in that the class politics of the country have a certain embedded snobbery even now when it comes to accents, dialects and "correctness" in speaking.
I wonder what Jasmine would have to say about this, it'd be interesting to know.
having a mastery of language and being able to use the nuances of different words which superficially mean the same thing, as well as having a certain poise and timing in how you write and speak is important. I think people who are particularly skilled in QE are good at this and perhaps that's why they are good at appearing intelligent. Stephen Fry for example. But there's just as much intelligence and nuance in what Peter Kay does with his northern dialect writing. it's just inherently perceived as more thick because it's boltonian and not southern basically.
i agree on some points, disagree on others.
i was just about to go out, so i didnt have time to elucidate. and i dont now either. maybe later.
contribution to seminar discussion when I'm hungover and/or haven't done the reading.
anything then? I just sit there and stare blankly.
if someone has specifically asked for my thoughts.