|
You don't care about his "made now effort to correct mistakes" then...  
|
|
|
|
|
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I think he just bringing home his point in a cringe-worthy fashion, just like in the title of the thread.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations; you appear to be the first person to catch the 'writ' error. 
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
|
|
|
|
|
I'd only just spotted it as well!
|
|
|
|
|
Hate to brag*, but I'm a published author.
Before I handed in a chapter to my editor I double checked if everything was correct.
My editor barely made any corrections, and when he did make a suggestion it was often something weird like "maybe you can explain what 'x' is or maybe not, your call."
At one point I got another editor and he read the already edited chapters as well, still no corrections.
When my book was published and I got the physical copy I was proud.
I opened my book on a random page and the first thing I noticed was a #@$&#!@^&^&! TYPO!  
This was written and double checked by me, two editors, a technical editor and finally someone who does a final check on spelling and grammar.
What I think is happening here is that everyone thinks the next person is going to fix it, but that person thinks the same.
That sort of behavior happens everywhere.
For example, the piles under my house were too short and my house started to sink into the ground (during construction, luckily).
The piling(?) company, the construction company, local authorities, some overarching builders group, and I think three more parties looked at a plan to fix it and came to an agreement.
The plan failed and in hindsight it never could've worked.
Seven(!) parties did no do their job and an entire row of houses had to be demolished in order to get good piles into the ground (they went from 6 m to 21 m, so go figure).
If that happens to a row of houses it could sure as hell happen to some book or article that may or may not be read.
OK, I love it, but I'm obliged to say that if I don't want to sound like a douche 
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
