As you know, we have already battled with the rules of when to use different spellings for the same words, and it has been no small task.
But the thing you have to understand that you can never really win the battle with words – you can only hold them back for long enough to crouch down in your trench and write a letter to your loved ones, telling them how much you miss the farm, and that you don't know when you'll be home.
Some words have two different spellings in the same country, and can be used interchangeably. These can hurt your head.
A prime offender of this is the word focussed. In US spelling, this word is spelt focused. In UK and Australian English, it's spelt focussed. But it's not really as straight-cut as that, because Australian English can't make it's mind up which one to use.
According to The Style Guide, which is the official guide to all the spellings in Australia, you should use focussed. But in the majority of publications, such as the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, the spelling focused is used instead. And you know when the Sydney Morning Herald is involved, shit is serious.
I know what you're thinking: You thinking 'what the fuck?! Why can't they just decide on one spelling!?' Well, you make a good point, but you're just a foot soldier on the grammar battlefield, and the question of focused and focussed is an interesting example of Australian spelling being an English ho, incorporating both UK and US spellings without so much as blushing.
The bottom line is that when you are in Australia, you have the option to use both spellings, as long as you are consistent. You can't just use focussed and focused in the same document - you need to stick with one, or you'll look like you've gone insane with choice.
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Who vs whom Part 2 – grammar suffers a bulletwound in the war-torn battlefield of hurt feelings
As you know, MC Grammar doesn't get upset very often. The only people that I hate are Robert Mugabe and all manufacturers of corn syrup. But lately, there has been something else that has been getting my goat – what is up with people using archaic language in an argument, just because they think that it makes them look smart and scares their opponents?
This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey
From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:
I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.
The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.
I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.
I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.
Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.
Keara O'Neil
And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:
Dear Keara O’Neil,
Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.
From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.
The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.
Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.
Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.
Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).
Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.
So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.
Thank you for your enquiry.
The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.
Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.
...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...
Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...
...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...
Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.
As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:
I know it was you who stepped on my fish
Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:
To whom were you speaking just then?
However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,
To whom it may concern
In all other situations, you can use 'who'.
So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!
Matthew Chidgey, please try to be like fisherman Julian Chidgey, who has taken life by the horns and caught this huge fish.
This leads us to the story of GASP Jeans, a clothes store that became part of an online viral story last month because of emails that were exchanged between a customer, Keara O'Neill, and a customer service-type person, Matthew Chidgey
From Keara O'Neill, the shopper:
I had the privilege of shopping at your brand new Chapel St store on Saturday 24th September with my three bridesmaids in tow. On the hunt for bridesmaids dresses and a hens dress for myself we walked into the store and were automatically pounced on by a male staff member, I understand that this is protocol for many retail outlets and ours is no different.
The staff member was initially funny and extremely helpful with sizes etc. I chose a bright pink dress to try on but was unable to do the zip up so asked for the size up, when I eventually got the correct size and came out of the change room I was unable to discuss the likes or dislikes of the dress with my bridesmaids as the sales assistant kept saying “you should just get it”, when I told him I would think about it, he pulled me aside and whispered “Is it the price your worried about”. By now I was extremely frustrated, and again told him I’d think about it, I walked back into the change room and closed the door behind me, only to have it pushed open with the sales assistant half standing in my change room, again whispering “I think you should just get it”, when I gave him attitude and said rudely, “I already told you I would think about it”, he then replied, “With your figure I really think you should buy it”.
I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that, but considering the attitude used to deliver such a statement I can only imagine that it was an immature dig in relation to my healthy size 12 frame. I got changed in a hurry and walked right out of the change rooms and out of the store, I could hear the sales assistant yelling out to me, but I just ignored him and continued to leave, assuming my bridesmaids would follow. After waiting down the road for my bridesmaids to come out of the store I was told by one of them that the sales assistant yelled out “Have fun finding something at Supre”, when one of them approached him in regards to his comments, he replied “I knew you girls were a joke the minute you walked in”. When my bridesmaids walked out of the store another two customers walked out with them, they too could not believe the immaturity of the sales assistant.
I have worked in retail for 12 years and have come across an array of customer complaints over the years, none of which come even close to what I encountered on Saturday at your store, I wish I was exaggerating but unfortunately for your company this person actually exists and is working in one of your stores. I am pretty laid back and was quite happy just leaving your store, it was my bridesmaids who felt the need to say something to him…I dread to think how many customers he has not only offended but how many customers have left your store due to the pressure placed on getting the sale, and then to be harassed when that sale hasn’t taken place.
Ring me, don’t ring, not fussed…I’m just one retailer notifying another of an extremely inappropriate sales assistant.
Keara O'Neil
And here's the response by GASP area manager Matthew Chidgey:
Dear Keara O’Neil,
Having now had the privilege of having both version of events, I am now in a position to respond to your complaint.
From the very outset, one thing that you should be mindful of is; Our product offerings are very, very carefully selected, so to ensure that we do not appeal to a broad customer base. This is something which is always at the forefront of our minds when undertaking buying duties.
The reason for this is to ensure that we only carry products which appeal to a very fashion forward consumer. This by default means that the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range, sometimes we have found that this type of customer, almost finds our dresses funny, and on occasion noted comments such as 'it looks like a dead flamingo'. When we receive comments like this, we like to give ourselves and our buyers, a big pat on the back, because we know we are doing our job right, and modus operandi is being upheld.
Our range is worn by A list celebrities to the likes of Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Katy Perry to name only a few. Now, as one might appreciate, the style counsel for these types of celebrities are not ones to pick “run of the mill” type clothing, and they do so on the basis to ensure that the styles are cutting edge, and only worn by a select few. Similarly these items are priced such that they remain inaccessible to the undesirable.
Insofar as our employee goes; Similar to our product offerings, our employees are selected with a similar approach. Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion, and Chris’s only problem is that he is too good at what he does, and as I am sure you are aware, people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted, which is the reason you were provoked to leave the store.
Whilst I concede that you work for chain retailer, unfortunately that does not make us like for like. It is probably fair to assume, a lot of what I have said in this email, either doesn’t make sense to you, or you totally disagree with it all, which is what I would expect (unless of course I have you totally wrong – which I doubt).
Let me guess, you would never, ever hire Chris in the course of your duty, would you? This is the very reason, why your comment “from one retailer to another” is so disproportionate, it’s almost as though we are in a totally different industries. Chris is a retail superstar, who possess unparalleled ability, and I am sorry you feel upset by him, but he knew you were not going to buy anything before you even left your house.
So if you would like to do us any favours, please do not waste our retail staff’s time, because as you have already seen, they will not tolerate it. I am sure there are plenty of shops that appease your taste, so I respectfully ask that you side step our store during future window shopping expeditions.
Thank you for your enquiry.
The best part of this email is the sign off, 'thank you for your inquiry' That's the sting the tail of this already very poisonous and aggressive scorpion's tale.
Let's have a look at Mr Chidgey's use of the pronoun, 'whom'.
...the customer whom is acclimatised to buying from “clothing for the masses” type retailers, is almost frightened by our range...
Chris whom served you is a qualified stylist whom has a sixth sense for fashion...
...people whom are talented, generally do not tolerate having their time wasted...
Matthew Chidgey! Why are you so fashion forward, and yet so grammar stationary! Why can't it be both! Why can't your sixth sense for fashion also come with a first sense for grammar correctness? You wordlessly promise so much with your fine, coiffed hair, your sharp, micro-fibre suit, but beyond your gilded exterior you are full of not just archaic language, but also plainly incorrect grammar.
As we have learnt before, traditionally who was used to refer to refer to the subject of a sentence or clause. For example:
I know it was you who stepped on my fish
Whom was used when referring to the object of a clause. For example:
To whom were you speaking just then?
However, the use of whom is now mostly archaic. This means that it has fallen out of use so much that it's no longer the right way to say something, and in most cases where you would have said 'whom' fifty years ago, it is now correct to say 'who'.
The only time you really need to use 'whom' when it comes after a preposition in more formal language. For example,
To whom it may concern
In all other situations, you can use 'who'.
So, unfortunately for Matthew Chidgey, he has let himself – and us – down on two fronts. He has used whom even though it is archaic, and in the places where he has used it, he's not even using it to refer to the object of a sentence. WTF, Matthew Chidgey!
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
To lol or not to lol?
David Mitchell is someone who loves grammar. Every day he fights for a better understanding of grammar, and his passions also include the honesty of politicians and the rules of queuing.
So it's safe to say that David Mitchell is a kind of well-rounded soldier for goodness. Here, David talks about the abbreviation lol, and has some very interesting points about how awesome it really is.
So it's safe to say that David Mitchell is a kind of well-rounded soldier for goodness. Here, David talks about the abbreviation lol, and has some very interesting points about how awesome it really is.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
10 mispronunciations that could get you killed
This is the cast of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.
They know about heinous. This is because they deal with heinous sex crimes every day of their damn working lives. In fact, they eat a bowl of heinous first thing in the morning. When they get to their desks, the first thing they do is update their status on facebook and twitter to 'very heinous', and after work, they go to the gym for a variety of workouts, such as 'heinous pump', 'cross-heinous' and 'advanced heinousness'.
And because they deal with heinousness in every facet of their day-to-day lives, they also know how to pronounce the word heinous – you would if you had to deal with it every damn day of your life. But what about you, who isn't confronted with the same amount of heinousness every day of your life? How will you cope when something heinous comes along? And who knows how a psychopathic murderer will react when they hear you say 'heinous' wrong?
And it's for this exact reason that you need to know these 10 frequently mispronounced words – so you are safe from all forms of heinousness in the future.
Here are 10 frequently mispronounced words:
Heinous – HAY-nus, not heen-us. Hear it here.
Often – you do not pronounce the 't' in often. Hear it here.
Exacerbate – the 'c' in exacerbate is soft, so it is ig-ZAS-ur-bayt, not ig-ZAK-ur-bayt. Hear it here.
Interpret – in-ter-PRET, not in-ter-PRE-TATE. Hear it here
Miniature – This word has four syllables. Say min-I-A-ture, not min-A-ture. Hear it here.
Preventive –This word has three syllables, not four. Pre-ven-tive, not pre-ven-TA-tive. Hear it here.
Regardless – This word has three syllables. Ain't no such word as 'irregardless'.
Asterisk – Notice the second S. Say as-ter-isk, not as-ter-ik. Hear it here.
Dilate – This word has two syllables, not three. Say di-late, not di-A-late. Hear it here.
Etcetera – Say et-cet-era, not ex-cet-era. Hear it here.
Armed with this knowledge, you can go about your business, never having to be afraid that you will suddenly utter a mispronunciation without realising. The streets might not be any safer, but at least your pronunciation is.
They know about heinous. This is because they deal with heinous sex crimes every day of their damn working lives. In fact, they eat a bowl of heinous first thing in the morning. When they get to their desks, the first thing they do is update their status on facebook and twitter to 'very heinous', and after work, they go to the gym for a variety of workouts, such as 'heinous pump', 'cross-heinous' and 'advanced heinousness'.
And because they deal with heinousness in every facet of their day-to-day lives, they also know how to pronounce the word heinous – you would if you had to deal with it every damn day of your life. But what about you, who isn't confronted with the same amount of heinousness every day of your life? How will you cope when something heinous comes along? And who knows how a psychopathic murderer will react when they hear you say 'heinous' wrong?
And it's for this exact reason that you need to know these 10 frequently mispronounced words – so you are safe from all forms of heinousness in the future.
Here are 10 frequently mispronounced words:
Heinous – HAY-nus, not heen-us. Hear it here.
Often – you do not pronounce the 't' in often. Hear it here.
Exacerbate – the 'c' in exacerbate is soft, so it is ig-ZAS-ur-bayt, not ig-ZAK-ur-bayt. Hear it here.
Interpret – in-ter-PRET, not in-ter-PRE-TATE. Hear it here
Miniature – This word has four syllables. Say min-I-A-ture, not min-A-ture. Hear it here.
Preventive –This word has three syllables, not four. Pre-ven-tive, not pre-ven-TA-tive. Hear it here.
Regardless – This word has three syllables. Ain't no such word as 'irregardless'.
Asterisk – Notice the second S. Say as-ter-isk, not as-ter-ik. Hear it here.
Dilate – This word has two syllables, not three. Say di-late, not di-A-late. Hear it here.
Etcetera – Say et-cet-era, not ex-cet-era. Hear it here.
Armed with this knowledge, you can go about your business, never having to be afraid that you will suddenly utter a mispronunciation without realising. The streets might not be any safer, but at least your pronunciation is.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
That vs which
During a very enjoyable afternoon of internet browsing, I image-googled 'that vs which', and this image came up:
So, when do you use that, and when do you use which?
The easiest way to remember how to use these two words correctly is to remember that you use that for a restrictive clause, and which for everything else.
A restrictive clause is a clause that limits what is being talked about. For example:
Dogs that bark get kidnapped around here.
In these clauses, you can't just leave out the bit about barking, because the kind of dogs we are talking about is restricted to dogs that bark.
However, if you say:
Dogs, which bark, get kidnapped around here
It means that it is not just dogs that bark that get kidnapped, but pretty much any dog that gets kidnapped. The barking bit is just extra information that might give you when they are overly interested in details.
 |
| Mysterious. |
So, when do you use that, and when do you use which?
The easiest way to remember how to use these two words correctly is to remember that you use that for a restrictive clause, and which for everything else.
A restrictive clause is a clause that limits what is being talked about. For example:
Dogs that bark get kidnapped around here.
In these clauses, you can't just leave out the bit about barking, because the kind of dogs we are talking about is restricted to dogs that bark.
However, if you say:
Dogs, which bark, get kidnapped around here
It means that it is not just dogs that bark that get kidnapped, but pretty much any dog that gets kidnapped. The barking bit is just extra information that might give you when they are overly interested in details.
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
Here's the situation: the sentence Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is a grammatically correct sentence that has a meaning.
The sentence uses three different meanings of 'buffalo'.
1. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States
2. the noun buffalo as in the animal; and
3. the verb 'buffalo' meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.
This means that the sentence if split up like this:
Marking each 'buffalo' with its use as shown above gives:
Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) buffalo(3) buffalo(3) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2)
So that the meaning of the sentence is:
Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison.
If this is still not making a lot of sense, think of it like this: If you replaced the verb 'buffalo' with 'intimidate', and the noun 'buffalo' with the word 'people', the sentence would read:
Buffalo people that Buffalo people intimidate also intimidate people.
It's clear that this is some crazy shit. It's an example of how homonyms can be used.
Homonyms are words that have the same spellings and pronunciations, but different meanings. Other examples of homonyms are:
Bass (e.g. I enjoy bass fishing and play the bass guitar)
Lead (e.g. the group's lead singer had made some enemies, and carried a lead pipe for protection.)
The amazing thing about this crazy homonym sentence is that is a completely valid sentence in the form that you see it in – it doesn't really even need punctuation, unless you are a bit of a comma-lover.
'I'm sorry, were you talking to me, or were you referring to the city of Buffalo. Or perhaps you were referring to the colloquial term 'buffalo', meaning 'to bully'? It's all so confusing! How did we even get this far as a species?'
The sentence uses three different meanings of 'buffalo'.
1. the city of Buffalo, New York, United States
2. the noun buffalo as in the animal; and
3. the verb 'buffalo' meaning to bully, confuse, deceive, or intimidate.
This means that the sentence if split up like this:
Marking each 'buffalo' with its use as shown above gives:
Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2) buffalo(3) buffalo(3) Buffalo(1) buffalo(2)
So that the meaning of the sentence is:
Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison.
If this is still not making a lot of sense, think of it like this: If you replaced the verb 'buffalo' with 'intimidate', and the noun 'buffalo' with the word 'people', the sentence would read:
Buffalo people that Buffalo people intimidate also intimidate people.
It's clear that this is some crazy shit. It's an example of how homonyms can be used.
Homonyms are words that have the same spellings and pronunciations, but different meanings. Other examples of homonyms are:
Bass (e.g. I enjoy bass fishing and play the bass guitar)
Lead (e.g. the group's lead singer had made some enemies, and carried a lead pipe for protection.)
The amazing thing about this crazy homonym sentence is that is a completely valid sentence in the form that you see it in – it doesn't really even need punctuation, unless you are a bit of a comma-lover.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Bear in mind – the correct spelling of a phrase, or a terrifying psychotic episode?
A lot of words have more than one meaning. Sometimes, it's as though these words are taunting us like potholes in the roads of our happiness, causing us to find ourselves helplessly stuck in a hole of misunderstanding. The double meaning of bear is an excellent example of these terrible, confusing potholes, not least when it is used in the context of the term 'bear in mind'.
You, like many other sexy and intelligent people, have probably said to yourself more than once, 'hang on, it can't be 'bear' in mind because 'bear' is an animal. It must be the other word that sounds a bit like bear, which is 'bare' in mind. Yes it must be 'bare in mind', as a bear in mind would be a terrifying psychotic episode brought on by a hereditary or lifestyle influence. But before we suffer in the darkness any longer, let's separate the lies from the truth here.
The word bear has two meanings:
1. A large, furry animal that can kill you
2. To carry, e.g. ' They came bearing gifts'
And so, the phrase 'bear in mind' refers to the second meaning of bear, as in 'carry this thought in your mind'.
And so, another grammar pothole has been filled in, making your journey to grammar nirvana smooth and joyous.
You, like many other sexy and intelligent people, have probably said to yourself more than once, 'hang on, it can't be 'bear' in mind because 'bear' is an animal. It must be the other word that sounds a bit like bear, which is 'bare' in mind. Yes it must be 'bare in mind', as a bear in mind would be a terrifying psychotic episode brought on by a hereditary or lifestyle influence. But before we suffer in the darkness any longer, let's separate the lies from the truth here.
The word bear has two meanings:
1. A large, furry animal that can kill you
2. To carry, e.g. ' They came bearing gifts'
And so, the phrase 'bear in mind' refers to the second meaning of bear, as in 'carry this thought in your mind'.
And so, another grammar pothole has been filled in, making your journey to grammar nirvana smooth and joyous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
