Spelling and Grammar Policemans Ball

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:
I say it is absolutely vital to proof read even the most casual of written communications that are destined to be published somewhere e.g. this forum. Thi is not because of the spelling or grammar, but because of the perceived meaning of the _content_.

Okay, I was speaking of trivial typos and misspellings that even if we notice, we might not feel inclined to make the effort to edit. I certainly would edit my first post of this thread under normal circumstances, as my typos made it, as Mr.Snazz said, incomprehensible, but I left it as to not confuse the postings that refer back to it. I also agree with you, because when we proofread our own material right after writing it, we may see what we MEANT to write, and not what we actually did, so even if you're on the side that grammar and spelling are insignificant if you manage to get your point across...you may not be getting your point across.

quote:
I bet a lot of people have posted things here that they intended to be witty / funny / intelligent but when read back turned out to be deeply insulting or wrong.

For the record, paying attention to one's spelling, punctuation and grammar is IMHO just good manners as it makes the post easier for others to read if nothing else (check out Geobadger's comments on this thread if you don't understand what I mean).

...which is what I meant in a previous post when I said that this thread stands as an illustration of the point.

ApK

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
To all those folks who have the misperception that there is a standard form of the English language (and especially those who believe they know what that form is) I strongly recommend the book _Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_ as a starting place.

Unless, of course, you have a background in linguistics. In which case I wonder how you came by that misunderstanding.

or, in the venacular: chill, dude.

kg6nee

[iRONY]

Yeah, excellent point. There's no universally accepted standard, so let's not even teach English in school. Since there are arguments as to usage and style lets make sure we pay no attention to how we use written language at all.

We can just grunt and point at cave paintings.

Theres clearly no importance to a well written novel or clearly expressed textbook or well crafted speech, since nobody can POSSIBLY know what 'well written' means. Yeah...excellent point.

[/iRONY]

There certainly are standards, they just change rapidly with a living language like English, as has been mentioned in the original thread already.

ApK

[This message was edited by ApK on September 13, 2002 at 10:06 AM.]

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
To all those folks who have the misperception that there is a standard form of the English language (and especially those who believe they know what that form is) I strongly recommend the book _Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language_ as a starting place.

Unless, of course, you have a background in linguistics. In which case I wonder how you came by that misunderstanding.

or, in the venacular: chill, dude.

kg6nee

There certainly are standards, they just change rapidly with a living language like English, as has been mentioned in the original thread already.

ApK

Or, in simple english: there are no standards.

Having more than one standard is like having more than one watch. You never know what grammer to use.

The thing that most people seem to miss about "standards" in language is that they're ambiguous, flexible, and, as you say, rapidly changing.

After all, we all know that the standard for english spelling is the way *I* spell.

kg6nee

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by jeremyp:
I say it is absolutely vital to proof read even the most casual of written communications that are destined to be published somewhere e.g. this forum. This is not because of the spelling or grammar, but because of the perceived meaning of the _content_. I bet a lot of people have posted things here that they intended to be witty / funny / intelligent but when read back turned out to be deeply insulting or wrong.

For the record, paying attention to one's spelling, punctuation and grammar is IMHO just good manners as it makes the post easier for others to read if nothing else (check out Geobadger's comments on this thread if you don't understand what I mean).

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

This forum itself hardly qualifies as absolutely vital so it's hard to see how any particular behavior in it can do so.

As far as good manners, I was taught that it's good manners to overlook other's faults when you are in a social situation, and I can't imagine a fault easier to overlook than poor spelling.

The word that seems to be missing from this thread is slack as in cut em some slack, jack

kg6nee

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:
I agree that we don't have to spell check and proofread everything here. But think how much easier you may have had it in school...how much easier it would be GET YOUR POINTS ACROSS if you had gone about your life until then believing that grammar and spelling WERE important, and taking any opporunity to use them well, rather than ignoring them and only trying to use them correctly when you felt you really had to?

ApK

I can't recall a time when my utter inability to spell made it difficult for me to get my point across.

kg6nee

38.2k · September 13, 2002

quote:
"a colleague" = "they"?

.

Has i sed tipos does hapen. Should have been

colleagues.

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
As far as good manners, I was taught that it's good manners to overlook other's faults when you are in a social situation, and I can't imagine a fault easier to overlook than poor spelling.

The word that seems to be missing from this thread is _slack_ as in _cut em some slack, jack_

kg6nee

Overlooking a fault does not mean approving of it, or condoning it, or failing to recognize it AS a FAULT, nor does it mean not discussing it, when the fault in general IS the topic of dicussion, nor does it mean that it's not a good thing to try to correct the fault.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I get tired or people stop trying to use it as an argument: THIS IS NOT ABOUT POINTING OUT SPELLING ERRORS!! NO ONE HAS TRIED TO CORRECT ANYONE'S SPELLING (execpt in jest or in an attempt at irony)!

READ THE THREAD!! I'm beginning to think that all these people arguing against good English have that point of view because they simply don't understand English at all! Grr!

ApK

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
As far as good manners, I was taught that it's good manners to overlook other's faults when you are in a social situation, and I can't imagine a fault easier to overlook than poor spelling.

The word that seems to be missing from this thread is _slack_ as in _cut em some slack, jack_

kg6nee

Overlooking a fault does not mean approving of it, or condoning it, or failing to recognize it AS a FAULT, nor does it mean not discussing it, when the fault in general IS the topic of dicussion, nor does it mean that it's not a good thing to try to correct the fault.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I get tired or people stop trying to use it as an argument: THIS IS NOT ABOUT POINTING OUT SPELLING ERRORS!! NO ONE HAS TRIED TO CORRECT ANYONE'S SPELLING (execpt in jest or in an attempt at irony)!

READ THE THREAD!! I'm beginning to think that all these people arguing against good English have that point of view because they simply don't understand English at all! Grr!

ApK

September 13, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
Or, in simple english: there are no standards.

Does anyone else find this utterly wrong?

Perhaps you can try explain this a little more clearly?

It sound very much like you're saying the something analagous to "There's more than one GPS Datum, so there are none." So, we should feel completely free and correct in posting coordinates relative to, say, a spot in New Hampshire on the surface of an Easter egg, rather then WGS84?

ApK

September 13, 2002

I am intolerant of errors by

1. My barber

2. My surgeon

3. My waitress

4. My pilot

5. My paymaster

and

6. Geocachers that can't spell

September 13, 2002

I am intolerant of errors by

1. My barber

2. My surgeon

3. My waitress

4. My pilot

5. My paymaster

and

6. Geocachers that can't spell

September 13, 2002

I normally don't point out peoples' grammar and spelling errors (although I did once today, hopefully in a polite manner). I think I refrained from doing so in this thread. I simply remarked on what I think when I read something that is poorly spelled.

If the author doesn't care enough to spend 5 minutes proofreading their stuff, I don't care enough to spend 5 minutes trying to decipher it. I just skip it and go on. That means that those who can't be bothered to spell well are probably not going to be communicating with me much.

Personally, I care about my communications, and try to make them as readable and useful as possible. Your mileage may vary.

Shannah

1k · September 13, 2002

We all have our challenges in life. Some people acquire skills or lack thereof hereditarily, others by the public education system or other means.

Me, I am musically inclined just enough to turn on a radio. But that does that stop me from singing? Not a bit. Let the bad spellers do what they can with that they have and leave them be.

If as much passion had gone into a geocaching related topic as it has in this indecorous one, we may have been able to figure out what really constitues a find and what the best cache container of all time is.

There's 3 kinds of people in this world, those that can count and those that can't.

[This message was edited by brdad on September 13, 2002 at 04:12 PM.]

3k · September 13, 2002

If you stair at a word long enough it can look wrong. Write? Hear is the Perfect Poem to prove that spelling does matter.

The Perfect Poem

I have a spelling checker,

It came with my PC;

It plainly marks four my revue,

Mistakes I cannot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,

I'm sure your please to no,

Its letter perfect in it's weigh,

My checker tolled me sew.

- Quoted by Pennye Harper

Hope you enjoyed it. Spelling matters.

Former spelling bee champ from Our Lady Of Mercy Elementary School

Cache you later,

Planet

3k · September 13, 2002

If you stair at a word long enough it can look wrong. Write? Hear is the Perfect Poem to prove that spelling does matter.

The Perfect Poem

I have a spelling checker,

It came with my PC;

It plainly marks four my revue,

Mistakes I cannot sea.

I've run this poem threw it,

I'm sure your please to no,

Its letter perfect in it's weigh,

My checker tolled me sew.

- Quoted by Pennye Harper

Hope you enjoyed it. Spelling matters.

Former spelling bee champ from Our Lady Of Mercy Elementary School

Cache you later,

Planet

September 13, 2002

Okay, I've wanted to reply to about a million posts in this discussion but held back. I can't resist any longer.

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by azog:
#1 - there's no such thing as a language degenerating. Spelling is a different story. Spelling != language.

I disagree. English has myriad words with very specific meanings. When the differentiation between these (sometimes subtle) meanings is lost, and the words begin to be used as synonyms, the language has been degraded. Degradation leads directly to degeneration.

I'm with azog. Granted languages could degrade in principle, but they don't, because new words and definitions are invented faster than old ones are lost. I remember a few years ago Prince Charles tried to argue that English has degraded by writing a crude version of Hamlet's soliloquy in modern day slang - implying, presumably, that *people really talked like that* in Shakespeare's day, which is manifestly false. I could quite easily rewrite H's s. in modern English every bit as varied and subtle as the original, because the English language is every bit as varied and subtle as it was back then.

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Badger:
if you can't understand what i'm trying to get across you wont be able to reply to this message either

I can, but it's a lot harder than it needs to be. A badly-spelled post takes twice as long to read as a well-spelled one - of course I don't mind this in the least if the writer made some effort, but if you 'can't be bothered' (as you said in a later post), that means you don't care about wasting my time. That's just impolite.

quote:
Originally posted by seneca (and much the same sentiment posted by lots of other people):
writing skills (or obvious lack thereof) certainly impacts on my overall opinion of that person’s attitudes, intelligence, work ethic, and level of education

I had a lecturer at university who begged us to spell correctly (actually I think he was talking about punctuation, but the point still applies). He said something like: "Please, please try to use punctuation correctly. I know your punctuation shouldn't influence my marking, but it does. I hate myself for it and I fight against it, but if I read your essay and you don't know something basic like how to use an apostrophe, I can't help forming an image of a person who's never read a book in his life and spends all of his time watching Sky television. An image like that is bound to affect my opinion of your intelligence."

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Badger:
By the way, i think it's hillarious when those who look down on bad spellers end up making a laughing stock of themselves

I don't think anyone in this whole thread has said or implied that they look down on bad spellers. What's being criticised (as has been, er, spelled out by lots of people) is the attitude that you shouldn't even *try* to spell correctly. Personally I spell pretty well, but I do sometimes slur my speech. I know this is a bad habit which makes me difficult to understand, so I try not to do it. Sometimes I don't try hard enough, and my speech slurs. This is rude and lazy, and I'm annoyed with myself afterwards.

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
This forum itself hardly qualifies as absolutely vital so it's hard to see how any particular behavior in it can do so.

This reasoning just baffles me. It wasn't vital for me to go to the supermarket this evening - I still think it's a good job I stopped at all the red lights along the way.

quote:
Originally posted by Planet:
I before E except after C and when it sounds like A

Oh yes! How wierd. ...Oh. For a minute there I thought you'd found a rule that actually worked.

Now I'd better run this through a spell checker before I post it...

September 13, 2002

weal this have ben a fin waist of my tyme!

3k · September 13, 2002

Pardon me just one more time. Did anyone ever stop to think that these folks CAN spell, they just can't type? Now back to geocaching.......

Cache you later,

Planet

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Planet:
Pardon me just one more time. Did anyone ever stop to think that these folks CAN spell, they just can't type? Now back to geocaching.......

Cache you later,

Planet

My dog can type. He just can't spell.

That, for the zillionth time, is not the point. Have you read any of this thread?

[This message was edited by ApK on September 14, 2002 at 06:15 AM.]

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
weal this have ben a fin waist of my tyme!

Ah...Middle English?

Seriously, though, when you saw a thread with this title, and read the very first post, what did you think your time was going to be spent on if you continued reading?

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
weal this have ben a fin waist of my tyme!

Ah...Middle English?

Seriously, though, when you saw a thread with this title, and read the very first post, what did you think your time was going to be spent on if you continued reading?

September 14, 2002

Edited draft...

I try not to judge others by their spelling, as I am probably one of the worst spellers. My spelling challenges many spell checkers to find the correct spelling. Even so I often have to cut and paste my messages into and out of my word processor. I'm above average intelligence but can't compose a message, type, and spell at the same time.

It would be great to have a spell check option on the forum.

The following is what this message would of looked like if I hadn’t spell checked it.

First draft...

I try not to judge others by their spelling as I am probbly one of the worst spellers. My spelling challenges most spell checkers to find the correct spelling. Even so I often have to cut and paste my messages into and out of my word proccesor. I'm above adverage intrellegence but can't compose a message, type, and spell at the same time.

It would be great to have a spell check option on the forum.

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by st_richardson:
It would be great to have a spell check option on the forum.

If you use Internet Explorer, try installing this.

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

Overlooking a fault does not mean approving of it, or condoning it, or failing to recognize it AS a FAULT, nor does it mean not discussing it, when the fault in general IS the topic of dicussion, nor does it mean that it's not a good thing to try to correct the fault.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I get tired or people stop trying to use it as an argument: THIS IS NOT ABOUT POINTING OUT SPELLING ERRORS!! NO ONE HAS TRIED TO CORRECT ANYONE'S SPELLING (execpt in jest or in an attempt at irony)!

READ THE THREAD!! I'm beginning to think that all these people arguing against good English have that point of view because they simply don't understand English at all! Grr!

ApK

Apparently not, as you don't seem to understand the point I'm trying to make. Let me spell it out. Social conventions are just that: conventions. There's no such thing as 'good' English. The "fault" (poor choice of word on my part) in a social situation is a violation of an arbitrary convention. It's not the same as a wrong or sin.

In simpler language: customs differ.

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

Overlooking a fault does not mean approving of it, or condoning it, or failing to recognize it AS a FAULT, nor does it mean not discussing it, when the fault in general IS the topic of dicussion, nor does it mean that it's not a good thing to try to correct the fault.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I get tired or people stop trying to use it as an argument: THIS IS NOT ABOUT POINTING OUT SPELLING ERRORS!! NO ONE HAS TRIED TO CORRECT ANYONE'S SPELLING (execpt in jest or in an attempt at irony)!

READ THE THREAD!! I'm beginning to think that all these people arguing against good English have that point of view because they simply don't understand English at all! Grr!

ApK

Apparently not, as you don't seem to understand the point I'm trying to make. Let me spell it out. Social conventions are just that: conventions. There's no such thing as 'good' English. The "fault" (poor choice of word on my part) in a social situation is a violation of an arbitrary convention. It's not the same as a wrong or sin.

In simpler language: customs differ.

kg6nee

2.6k · September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by SimonG:

If you use Internet Explorer, try installing http://www.iespell.com/.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
Or, in simple english: there are no standards.

Does anyone else find this utterly wrong?

Perhaps you can try explain this a little more clearly?

It sound very much like you're saying the something analagous to "There's more than one GPS Datum, so there are none." So, we should feel completely free and correct in posting coordinates relative to, say, a spot in New Hampshire on the surface of an Easter egg, rather then WGS84?

ApK

That you pulled a sentence out of context and elided all of the material that established that context? Yeah, I find that "utterly wrong", or at least unhelpful, argumentative, and noncommunicative.

If you really want to understand my point, rather than just argue from a knee jerk position, then I recommend that you read the book that I recommended.

But here's a helpful hint: languages are not mathematical systems. They lack the precision, they are ambiguous, and they evolve.

But if you want to just keep arguing, here's a point for you to pick on: Do you get your standard spelling from the OED or from Noah?

Or, if you prefer: Do you get your grammer from the CMS or from Quirk?

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by SimonG:
Okay, I've wanted to reply to about a million posts in this discussion but held back. I can't resist any longer.

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
This forum itself hardly qualifies as absolutely vital so it's hard to see how any particular behavior in it can do so.

This reasoning just baffles me. It wasn't vital for me to go to the supermarket this evening - I still think it's a good job I stopped at all the red lights along the way.

Now I'd better run this through a spell checker before I post it...

If you can point out to me forum behavior that has the attendant risk of running a red light, I'll reconsider my position.

Come on, folks, lighten up. We're talking about informal chatting on a web board here. The phrase "absolutely vital" is way over the top when discussing what goes on here.

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
There's no such thing as 'good' English.

The most absurd thing about that comment is that it's belied most clearly by your own good English.

The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person (perhaps it's not accurate, but that IS more the point of this thread than anything you've said challenging a particular spelling variant or usage choice, when no one has even suggested them) and with that image in my mind, I can only figure that the arguments you are making are crafted solely for the purpose of being irritating.

Others may be more patient, and I'll read their replies to you with interest, but this will be my last to you on the topic.

ApK

[This message was edited by ApK on September 14, 2002 at 12:41 PM.]

September 14, 2002

In honor of this thread, I'd like to make a cache stocked with little dictionaries or grammar guides.

Yes, really.

Anyone know of a good source for inexpensive miniature books of such kind?

ApK

September 14, 2002

quote:
...The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person...

Wow do I feel sorry for you! Step outside and get some fresh aire.

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

quote:
...The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person...

Wow do I feel sorry for you! Step outside and get some fresh aire.

Is your pity totally out of context, or can you elaborate a bit so I can have some idea what the heck you're talking about?

ApK

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

quote:
Originally posted by Marty Fouts:
There's no such thing as 'good' English.

The most absurd thing about that comment is that it's belied most clearly by your own good English.

The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person (perhaps it's not accurate, but that IS more the point of this thread than anything you've said challenging a particular spelling variant or usage choice, when no one has even suggested them) and with that image in my mind, I can only figure that the arguments you are making are crafted solely for the purpose of being irritating.

Others may be more patient, and I'll read their replies to you with interest, but this will be my last to you on the topic.

ApK

[This message was edited by ApK on September 14, 2002 at 12:41 PM.]

I don't write "good" English. I write a regional dialect, and I can't spell worth beans. I have no idea why you think I'm trying to be an irritant rather than being responsive to my points, but it's pretty clear that even what you think of as 'good' grammer isn't communicating with you.

Which part of "language conventions are regional, arbitrary, and variable means that there's no such thing as 'good' grammar'" are you having trouble understanding?

If you want to understand what I'm trying to say, read the book I recommend. It's actually easy to read and it makes the point more clearly than I can.

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

quote:
...The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person...

Wow do I feel sorry for you! Step outside and get some fresh aire.

shh... he thinks i r intelligunt. don't disabuse him of that, so few peepul do.

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

quote:
...The fact is, your use of good English suggests, to my mind, that you are probably a pretty intelligent person...

Wow do I feel sorry for you! Step outside and get some fresh aire.

shh... he thinks i r intelligunt. don't disabuse him of that, so few peepul do.

kg6nee

September 14, 2002

To me, it only matters if it hinder communication. Spelling mistakes rarely do, unless they are so bad that there is some confusion over which word is meant. Grammar errors can be worse, since they often force one to pause work out the correct grammar mentally before continuing. But then some things people do when trying to be correct too hard have the same effect. I hate proofreader marks in quotes for example. "They tried to drive up the hill, but there was just no way[...] The bus was too overloaded." is harder to read than if the period had been left as it was.

September 15, 2002

quote:
But then some things people do when trying to be correct too hard have the same effect. I hate proofreader marks in quotes for example. "They tried to drive up the hill, but there was just no way[...] The bus was too overloaded." is harder to read than if the period had been left as it was.

As an aside, If you've ever actually seen someone change a period to a bracketed ellipsis like you describe, they were just plain wrong. That not what "[. . .]" is supposed to be used for. It's used by editors to show that there is more to the material being quoted, but it is being intentionally left out.

ApK

September 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:
They may have put-up with it and may continue to put-up with it, but I don’t have to. If you cannot accept constructive criticism for your own benefit, then bug-off, who needs you?

Please stop using unnecessary hyphens. Thanks.

(note for the humor impaired: )

http://216.202.195.127/warm.gif

I stand corrected. Thank you

September 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy & The Beast:
They may have put-up with it and may continue to put-up with it, but I don’t have to. If you cannot accept constructive criticism for your own benefit, then bug-off, who needs you?

Please stop using unnecessary hyphens. Thanks.

(note for the humor impaired: )

http://216.202.195.127/warm.gif

I stand corrected. Thank you

September 15, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Geo Badger:

i am but a poor uneducated fool.

Dan Wilson - http://www.Buckscaching.co.uk

September 16, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:
As an aside, If you've ever actually seen someone change a period to a bracketed ellipsis like you describe, they were just plain wrong. That not what "[. . .]" is supposed to be used for. It's used by editors to show that there is more to the material being quoted, but it is being intentionally left out.

ApK

Hmm, now that you meantion it, maybe it wasn't quite like that, but it was in the middle of chunk of quoted text. Perhaps they meant they cut out th middle? But in any case that kind of stuff is as hard to read as bad grammar. I know I've seen []s used like this:

[T]his was not originally capitalized.

September 17, 2002

From the Groundspeak Search page:

Quick Search: Topics You Posted to with New Posts

"Topics to Which You Have Posted New Posts" is correct.

"Topics You Posted New Posts To" is shorter.

wcgreen

--

Wendy Chatley Green

wcgreen@eudoramail.com

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
From the Groundspeak Search page:

Quick Search: Topics You Posted to with New Posts

"Topics to Which You Have Posted New Posts" is correct.

"Topics You Posted New Posts To" is shorter.

Ooh..I get to argue with a pro...

Neither version you give means the same as what the actual wording means.

Your two versions would mean that YOU posted new messages to those topics. The actual meaning is SOMEONE posted new message to topics to which you have posted at some time.

It could be stated as "Topics to which you've posted which now have new posts." But as that's needlessly wordy and awkward, and one of the rules of editing is to cut out words wherever you can, especially "which," I think the actual wording is swell.

ApK

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
From the Groundspeak Search page:

Quick Search: Topics You Posted to with New Posts

"Topics to Which You Have Posted New Posts" is correct.

"Topics You Posted New Posts To" is shorter.

Ooh..I get to argue with a pro...

Neither version you give means the same as what the actual wording means.

Your two versions would mean that YOU posted new messages to those topics. The actual meaning is SOMEONE posted new message to topics to which you have posted at some time.

It could be stated as "Topics to which you've posted which now have new posts." But as that's needlessly wordy and awkward, and one of the rules of editing is to cut out words wherever you can, especially "which," I think the actual wording is swell.

ApK

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ManaUser:

Hmm, now that you meantion it, maybe it wasn't quite like that, but it was in the middle of chunk of quoted text. Perhaps they meant they cut out th middle? But in any case that kind of stuff is as hard to read as bad grammar. I _know_ I've seen []s used like this:

[T]his was not originally capitalized.

Yeah, the brackets themselves just mean that it's from the editor and not from the original source. Keep in mind that the alternatives to having [. . .] in a quote is to either print a lot of extra material that doesn't need to be there to make the point, or get in trouble from the original source for misquoting them.

ApK

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
From the Groundspeak Search page:

Quick Search: Topics You Posted to with New Posts

"Topics to Which You Have Posted New Posts" is correct.

"Topics You Posted New Posts To" is shorter.

Ooh..I get to argue with a pro...

Neither version you give means the same as what the actual wording means.

And you are correct. I should have had more coffee before posting.

quote:
Your two versions would mean that YOU posted new messages to those topics. The actual meaning is SOMEONE posted new message to topics to which you have posted at some time.

It could be stated as "Topics to which you've posted which now have new posts." But as that's needlessly wordy and awkward, and one of the rules of editing is to cut out words wherever you can, especially "which," I think the actual wording is swell.

ApK

I happen to like "which" as a word. It requires a preposition or, if it is used in a clause, commas.

Its second use in your effort is incorrect.

"Topics to which you posted that have new posts" is grammatical (and better than what I did earlier).

wcgreen

--

Wendy Chatley Green

wcgreen@eudoramail.com

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ApK:

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
From the Groundspeak Search page:

Quick Search: Topics You Posted to with New Posts

"Topics to Which You Have Posted New Posts" is correct.

"Topics You Posted New Posts To" is shorter.

Ooh..I get to argue with a pro...

Neither version you give means the same as what the actual wording means.

And you are correct. I should have had more coffee before posting.

quote:
Your two versions would mean that YOU posted new messages to those topics. The actual meaning is SOMEONE posted new message to topics to which you have posted at some time.

It could be stated as "Topics to which you've posted which now have new posts." But as that's needlessly wordy and awkward, and one of the rules of editing is to cut out words wherever you can, especially "which," I think the actual wording is swell.

ApK

I happen to like "which" as a word. It requires a preposition or, if it is used in a clause, commas.

Its second use in your effort is incorrect.

"Topics to which you posted that have new posts" is grammatical (and better than what I did earlier).

wcgreen

--

Wendy Chatley Green

wcgreen@eudoramail.com

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
I happen to like "which" as a word. It requires a preposition or, if it is used in a clause, commas.

Hm. Y'learn somethin' new everyday. Probably the reason why I so readily accepted the idea of cutting "which" whenever possible, is that I've never understood how to use it properly. Perhaps I need to see a Which Doctor.

Hey...we've blown one of the key counter-arguments of the thread...we can't say we haven't corrected anyone now...

ApK

September 17, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by wcgreen:
I happen to like "which" as a word. It requires a preposition or, if it is used in a clause, commas.

Hm. Y'learn somethin' new everyday. Probably the reason why I so readily accepted the idea of cutting "which" whenever possible, is that I've never understood how to use it properly. Perhaps I need to see a Which Doctor.

Hey...we've blown one of the key counter-arguments of the thread...we can't say we haven't corrected anyone now...

ApK

2.6k · September 17, 2002

Preparation, the first law to survival.

Spelling and Grammar Policemans Ball

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment