|
Sander Rossel wrote: it never could've worked.
Most native English (and American) speakers would've written "could of", and do not even understand why it's (i.e. 'it is') wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
They're, their, there, it's so simple 
One thing I sometimes struggle with is "it's" instead of "its".
For example: Sander's/Sanders book is awesome
That's because in Dutch it's "Sander's" while in English it's "Sanders".
However, when you say: Chris' website is awesome, you do use that apostrophe and it's the same as in Dutch.
Sanders presidential campaign (that would be my presidential campaign) vs. Sanders' presidential campaign (Bernie's campaign).
Or in Dutch, Sander's presidential campaign and Sanders' presidential campaign.
It's not just an English phenomenon though.
Dutch language skills are deteriorating as well.
Especially the dreaded "dt" rule (singular second person is singular first person + T).
"Ik vind" (I find) and "Hij vindt" (He finds).
You see stuff like "Ik vindt" (horribly wrong) and "Hij vind" (less wrong, but still wrong).
I must admit I sometimes do it wrong too and I still struggle with the past particle of some words (does it end with a D or a T?) 
Hard to explain to a non-Dutch I guess 
Let's just say I find such grammar errors in business emails, even the more formal ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: That's because in Dutch it's "Sander's" while in English it's "Sanders".
No, the correct English usage is, "Sander's book"; which is a contraction of "Sander his book". The apostrophe tells us that some characters have been removed. When the word normally ends in an 's' (as in Bernie Sanders or Chris) then we just put the apostrophe and do not add the extra 's'; although, strictly speaking, we should.
Sander Rossel wrote: Hard to explain to a non-Dutch I guess
But not to those of us who are fascinated with language and its (belonging to it, as his is belonging to him) usage.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: One thing I sometimes struggle with is "it's" instead of "its".
Richard MacCutchan wrote: No, the correct English usage is, "Sander's book"
I think I've proven my point
Richard MacCutchan wrote: its (belonging to it, as his is belonging to him) usage.
I guess that's where my struggle comes from 
So, Sander's book, Sanders' campaign, its effectiveness and it's hopeless.
|
|
|
|
|
Now you understand everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the English language has no more secrets for I! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats sad 
I don't think it's laziness though.
This 'lazy' generation is always busy with looking good on Instagram or Twitch, which is probably a lot more effort than writing an apostrophe
I think it's just that people think other things are more important.
Or maybe it once started as a way to distinguish oneself.
Back in the day, when MSN was still a thing, I also wrote liek dis bcus that was cool
Nowadays it's all gg lol ftw g2g!
All because those precious keystrokes are worth points in online games.
You could even say they optimized language so they have more time to play their games
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: That's sad
FTFY
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
What can I say! Took humanity a few thousand years to go from hieroglyphs and pictogram to alphabets and written words and now in a few short years we move back to hieroglyphs (called emojis now). How come for hundreds of years people have been able to express their thoughts and sentiments using words and now, all of a sudden we go back to signs scribbled on a cave wall.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Those business emails are a pain. Someone often responses before I do, because I am still trying to correct my mistakes and wording.
For some reason; I find it easier to spot my mistakes after sending the response.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: but I'm obliged to say that if I don't want to sound like a douche
That's not how it works. 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it does.
Check this out.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I think you're an idiot!
Were you offended?
No you were not.
Because excusing yourself up front is like the secret super weapon that makes you get away with everything
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Were you offended?
No you were not.
Because excusing yourself up front is like the secret super weapon that makes you get away with everything
No I'm not offended.
Because getting offended by a moron makes one of myself. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oi! You didn't excuse yourself up front and now you've gone and offended me! 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at least you don't think I'm a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
To be fair, I doubt that any editor would "skip over" an error assuming a later editor would fix it. It's more likely that having skim read the proof and found it to be generally good that they don't bother with a proper proof-read. The other issue is that it's actually really hard to proof-read your own work. Of course you'll find many issues, but when reading it a lot of the time you're really just "re-playing" in your head what you intended to write, rather than reading the characters on the page.
A service I provide is proof reading websites (including checking for consistent terminology, consistent capitalisation etc) and I frequently find errors which the authors are really embarrassed about, having read, re-read and read again looking for - and missing - typos. I'm aware that having set myself up as a "proof reader" I am very much at risk when making changes to my own website!
This is quite a thread now and I'm wondering whether the OP really intended the typo in the subject line... (though I'm fairly sure that's a typing error rather than a language error, if it wasn't deliberate)
|
|
|
|
|
DerekT-P wrote: I doubt that any editor would "skip over" an error assuming a later editor would fix it. It's more likely that having skim read the proof and found it to be generally good that they don't bother with a proper proof-read.
Yeah, they won't ignore an error if they find it, but they won't do as much trouble finding it because someone else will (hopefully) do that already.
DerekT-P wrote: checking for consistent terminology
This is so important and hard to do!
I often find myself starting an article talking about, for examples, "releases", but when I continue the next day, or after lunch or whatever, I continue with "deployments".
You won't even notice it when reading the entire work.
It's also very important to stick to the terminology of the tools you're using.
For example, Azure DevOps has "release pipelines", so call them that and not "deployment pipelines".
Most editors probably wouldn't even notice, but for someone going through your article and looking for "deployment pipelines" it can be really confusing!
Capitalization is also a thing. For example, when I first mention something, I often capitalize it.
Example: "You will find Pipelines in the left-hand menu. This is where you can create and manage pipelines. So go to pipelines and you will see..."
Or: "You will find 'Pipelines' in the left-hand menu. This is where you can create and manage pipelines. So go to 'Pipelines' and you will see..."
Pipelines doesn't have to be capitalized, but when I'm talking about an actual caption on a button, I like to be very specific by using the exact capitalization the button uses, but that looks weird so I quote it too.
"Click the 'Post Message' button at the bottom of the screen, this will post the message in The Lounge."
Consistent writing is probably the hardest part about writing.
One more thing that's really a bitch, British English vs. American English.
The media I get to see, read, play and hear is mostly American, so it's capitalization and not capitalisation.
Google will even mark the S as a typo
As a non-native English speaker I really don't know which is what and I can be found writing the proper capitalization of different colours
DerekT-P wrote: the typo in the subject line
What typo?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: so it's capitalization and not capitalisation.
In proper English (or "British English" as the USians say, arrogantly trying to make out that it is merely a dialect of their own butchered version of English) both versions are correct. The "z" version is supposedly older English (that went over on the Mayflower, some say) while the "s" version in "modern" English is influence by those pesky French persons who have for centuries fiddled with perfectly good English to make it more like their weird language! This is apocryphal. Actually older English used "s" everywhere except for loan words from French such as "blazon" or "buzzard" and then the USians started using it everywhere; for example, in "Donutz", which in proper English is spelled "Doughnuts". 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
modified 22-May-20 10:52am.
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering when someone would mention that error. You are correct, that was a typing error.
I agree with everything you said about editors; as well proof reading your own work. We often read what we thought we wrote; missing the fact that what we actually wrote was not what we thought.
It reminds me of the stuttering problem I use to have, and occasionally still have. It is like a short circuit; my mouth is trying to speak the first word and my brain is already on the fifth word. When writing, we sometimes, unintentionally, fail to type a word (or letter) because we are already passed the point in our own heads.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: What I think is happening here is that everyone thinks the next person is going to fix it, but that person thinks the same.
I used the above concept - and this was decades ago - in order to get the following phrase through and into (comparatively internal) publication:
"This will necessitate the application of judicious empiricism." which was just another way of saying "Take an educated guess".
Another one I did, for publication in refereed literature, was to put in deliberate mistakes like "the the" so that the upper echelons had something to correct and not attempt to put their ill-equipped minds to commenting on the technical content about which they were basically clueless. This gave them an opportunity to "spray their territory". When I got it back, except for fixing deliberate typos, I ignored their nonsense and submitted it intact - let real scientist vet the content.
This was in the middle 80's through early 90's. So not much has really changed in how these things are done.
Sigh.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Shaw wrote: Have fun taring apart the above, as I had no editor and made now effort to correct mistakes
Nice challenge.
|
|
|
|
|
Professionalism is definitely diminishing. It doesn't seem like proofreading is a thing anymore. Also, things like swearing were not done in articles, but now it is. And some even include memes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jacquers wrote: And some even include memes.
I think that's a good thing.
Swearing can be a good thing, depending on the goal, tone and audience of the article.
Like what if your article was a rant against bugs in Visual Studio?
"Unfortunately, Visual Studio crashed again."
Or: "And then that f***ing piece of crap Visual Studio crashed AGAIN!" [Insert y u do dis meme here]
Which of the two better conveys my utter frustration and anger with Visual Studio?
The second one can also be used to keep the reader's attention, especially if the rest of the article is "decent".
It's more a form of style than anything.
It's pretty modern though.
Old skool readers may stop right there and return to their physical newspaper, but that probably isn't your audience if you write like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: "Unfortunately, Visual Studio crashed again."
Or: "And then that f***ing piece of crap Visual Studio crashed AGAIN!" [Insert y u do dis meme here]
Which of the two better conveys my utter frustration and anger with Visual Studio?
One reads like the start of a rational discussion I might want to get into. The other is a temper tantrum and I just want to skip over that part to get to the informative bits.
But it all depends on the goal. There's nothing wrong with a good rant every once in a while, and my post history will show I'm as guilty of that as anyone else.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
