Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.0 -
We could go back to the ancient Greek approach: noupperandlowercasenopunctuationandnospacebetweenwordsTheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I agree.TheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Then to avoid any ambiguity, why use 're-signed'? I don't think I have ever heard that hyphenated word or even seen it written until today.Pross said:One where a hyphen can make a huge difference in meaning is resign and re-sign. I’ve seen written down that someone has resigned when it meant re-signed which basically gives the opposite message. In speech they would definitely be pronounced differently.
I guess this is in amongst a unique sector of road engineers/designers.
But still, 'change the signage', 'alter the signs'... There must be multiple ways to say the same thing.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Got a really bad case on the runs on Saturday and I’m still down with it.
So bad I can’t leave the house without risking a disaster. Miserable.0 -
rick_chasey said:
Got a really bad case on the runs on Saturday and I’m still down with it.
So bad I can’t leave the house without risking a disaster. Miserable.
Bad luck - draining, in every sense of the word. Sounds like a bug, rather than bad food, if it's now four days... normally the body clears that up through the evacuation, I'd have thought.0 -
Making something easier to read is not the same as conveying additional information through written form only. See horses, horse's and horses'.rjsterry said:
We could go back to the ancient Greek approach: noupperandlowercasenopunctuationandnospacebetweenwordsTheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.
0 -
-
TheBigBean said:
Making something easier to read is not the same as conveying additional information through written form only. See horses, horse's and horses'.rjsterry said:
We could go back to the ancient Greek approach: noupperandlowercasenopunctuationandnospacebetweenwordsTheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.
If you think the relationship between spoken & written English is bad, try French... all that agreement between subjects & verbs, and nouns and adjectives, but most of which are inaudible in spoken French. "Agréées", my arrse. Wasted letraset, more like.
But, as I said, upthread, the benefit of written language is the speed with which you can read it (compared with the oral version), and for that reading/comprehension to be rapid and accurate, conformation to norms is extremely helpful.
Even in Latin, with all its conjugation and declension, experienced native readers had to practise reading stuff out loud to make sense of it, and reading silently 'in one's head' was virtually unheard of, so much so that Saint Ambrose was famous for it.
https://qz.com/quartzy/1118580/the-beginning-of-silent-reading-was-also-the-beginning-of-an-interior-life0 -
French has many problems on this front. For example, the way no one says "ne" yet it still gets written. This works particularly badly when combined with plus which either means "more" or "no more" depending on the pronunciation and the invisible "ne".0
-
Indeed. Thanks to the Académie Française, the gap between formal and spoken & informal written French is getting wider and wider. A minefield for non-native speakers. I probably didn't like someone out of the 1950s to native speakers.TheBigBean said:French has many problems on this front. For example, the way no one says "ne" yet it still gets written. This works particularly badly when combined with plus which either means "more" or "no more" depending on the pronunciation and the invisible "ne".
0 -
No, it means re-signed as in ‘Mo Salah has re-signed for Liverpool’. It’s pretty much a commonplace term (and, as I said, means more or less the opposite of resigned).pinno said:
Then to avoid any ambiguity, why use 're-signed'? I don't think I have ever heard that hyphenated word or even seen it written until today.Pross said:One where a hyphen can make a huge difference in meaning is resign and re-sign. I’ve seen written down that someone has resigned when it meant re-signed which basically gives the opposite message. In speech they would definitely be pronounced differently.
I guess this is in amongst a unique sector of road engineers/designers.
But still, 'change the signage', 'alter the signs'... There must be multiple ways to say the same thing.0 -
'Renewed his contract'. Never mind.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Pross said:
No, it means re-signed as in ‘Mo Salah has re-signed for Liverpool’. It’s pretty much a commonplace term (and, as I said, means more or less the opposite of resigned).pinno said:
Then to avoid any ambiguity, why use 're-signed'? I don't think I have ever heard that hyphenated word or even seen it written until today.Pross said:One where a hyphen can make a huge difference in meaning is resign and re-sign. I’ve seen written down that someone has resigned when it meant re-signed which basically gives the opposite message. In speech they would definitely be pronounced differently.
I guess this is in amongst a unique sector of road engineers/designers.
But still, 'change the signage', 'alter the signs'... There must be multiple ways to say the same thing.
Please can you resign the contract
Please can you re-sign the contract
Please can you sign the contract again.0 -
But re-sign gets used regularly. If someone uses it without the hyphen it completely changes the context of what they are writing.0
-
Shades of Ernie Pepys Wise there...TheBigBean said:Pross said:
No, it means re-signed as in ‘Mo Salah has re-signed for Liverpool’. It’s pretty much a commonplace term (and, as I said, means more or less the opposite of resigned).pinno said:
Then to avoid any ambiguity, why use 're-signed'? I don't think I have ever heard that hyphenated word or even seen it written until today.Pross said:One where a hyphen can make a huge difference in meaning is resign and re-sign. I’ve seen written down that someone has resigned when it meant re-signed which basically gives the opposite message. In speech they would definitely be pronounced differently.
I guess this is in amongst a unique sector of road engineers/designers.
But still, 'change the signage', 'alter the signs'... There must be multiple ways to say the same thing.
Please can you resign the contract
Please can you re-sign the contract
Please can you sign the contract again.0 -
Irrespective of whether it could be phrased better re-sign gets used a lot which is the point I’m making so if using it you have to use the hyphen. Imagine how upset football fans would get reading a headline saying their favourite players ‘resigns’.TheBigBean said:Pross said:
No, it means re-signed as in ‘Mo Salah has re-signed for Liverpool’. It’s pretty much a commonplace term (and, as I said, means more or less the opposite of resigned).pinno said:
Then to avoid any ambiguity, why use 're-signed'? I don't think I have ever heard that hyphenated word or even seen it written until today.Pross said:One where a hyphen can make a huge difference in meaning is resign and re-sign. I’ve seen written down that someone has resigned when it meant re-signed which basically gives the opposite message. In speech they would definitely be pronounced differently.
I guess this is in amongst a unique sector of road engineers/designers.
But still, 'change the signage', 'alter the signs'... There must be multiple ways to say the same thing.
Please can you resign the contract
Please can you re-sign the contract
Please can you sign the contract again.0 -
Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.0 -
Some other re- words that change meaning with a hyphen;
https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/hyphens/hyphens-with-the-prefix-re/0 -
Its not that important:First.Aspect said:Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."0 -
JimD666 said:
Its not that important:First.Aspect said:Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
There is something interesting in that, but David Crystal somewhat debunks that... the way the letters are humbled makes a big difference.0 -
...
[I'll have a better crack at what I was trying to say tomorrow.]
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Oh its (almost) complete carp. It was alleged to be from a Oxford Uni study in the early 2000's.briantrumpet said:JimD666 said:
Its not that important:First.Aspect said:Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
There is something interesting in that, but David Crystal somewhat debunks that... the way the letters are humbled makes a big difference.
https://www.treehugger.com/why-your-brain-can-read-jumbled-letters-4864305
Has a fairly good explanation of it all0 -
I've seen analyses about the information content of the top and bottom halves of fonts as well. I can't remember the conclusions, but that doesn't matter, as long as I claim that you only need half of a font.briantrumpet said:JimD666 said:
Its not that important:First.Aspect said:Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
There is something interesting in that, but David Crystal somewhat debunks that... the way the letters are humbled makes a big difference.0 -
You can always blame previous generations for abandoning things like inflection of the definite article, which would tell you whether you were talking about the horses' field or the horse's field. And other predecessors for abandoning the the -en suffix for plurals in favour of -s. No risk of confusion with oxen.TheBigBean said:
Making something easier to read is not the same as conveying additional information through written form only. See horses, horse's and horses'.rjsterry said:
We could go back to the ancient Greek approach: noupperandlowercasenopunctuationandnospacebetweenwordsTheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.rjsterry said:
Why should written English be identical to spoken English? They are two different things in most languages. A lot of meaning is communicated through intonation, timing and emphasis in speech, where these tools are not really available in written language so and so have been replaced with punctuation.TheBigBean said:
Have you ever confused “small business owner” and “small-business owner” in conversation?briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:People always talks about punctuation changing meaning's; but examples only every involve: comma's.
Hyphens can too.
Michael Jackson liked forty-eight-year-olds.
Michael Jackson liked forty eight-year-olds.
More, stolen:We’re back to these guys again! You might not think hyphens are such a big deal, but just wait until you’re faced with a “dog-eating cat!” Hyphens connect ideas. They’re the glue that holds descriptions together. They’re a pretty big deal!
Take, for example, our dog-eating cat. By placing that little line between the words “dog” and “eating,” you’re marking them as a single description. This means that, with the hyphen, you have a cat who eats dogs.
Without the hyphen, the words “dog” and “eating” are not connected, changing the way the phrase is read. You now have a “dog eating cat,” or a dog that’s actually eating cat as we speak (yuck, someone get that thing out of here!).
Okay, so you may not ever need to warn someone about a dog-eating cat or a dog that’s eating a cat (we hope). Hyphens show up in real-world examples, too, though.
Are you scheduled to work “twenty four-hour shifts,” or “twenty-four-hour shifts?” Are you a “small business owner,” or a “small-business owner?”
Leaving out the hyphens can lead to confusion, or at the very least, a silly image (like a short businessman who works four-hour shifts).
https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/common-errors-in-english/
My test is if the distinction is not clear when spoken, then it shouldn't matter when written down. For example, the difference between "horse's field" and "horses' field". Written down you find out whether there is only one horse, but when spoken you don't have this luxury. Therefore, it is a particularly poor way to communicate the number of horses involved. I'm not sure whether apostrophes add any value beyond being a shibboleth like less and fewer, so I'd be minded to stop using them.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Shouldn't that be 'sea horses'?TheBigBean said:
Making something easier to read is not the same as conveying additional information through written form only. See horses, horse's and horses'.
1 -
IIRC serif fonts are generally more legible than sans serif. It's interesting just how difficult to read some medieval letterforms are.First.Aspect said:
I've seen analyses about the information content of the top and bottom halves of fonts as well. I can't remember the conclusions, but that doesn't matter, as long as I claim that you only need half of a font.briantrumpet said:JimD666 said:
Its not that important:First.Aspect said:Accrasy is nesessar...
Accurasy is necessary...
It is important to get it right.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
There is something interesting in that, but David Crystal somewhat debunks that... the way the letters are humbled makes a big difference.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Read the following sentences out loud:TheBigBean said:
Written stuff can be read out loud. It should make sense whether written or not.
Billy went to help his Uncle Jack off a horse.
Billy went to help his uncle jack off a horse.
Do those mean the same thing to you? :-)
Written forms contain expression and context clues (via punctuation and capitalisation) that spoken language manages with (very) subtle intonation and phrasing.
Punctuation in written language has its uses.
Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
That's very pretty but I really have to concentrate to make out individual letters let alone words. Did they do it deliberately to keep the commoners down?rjsterry said:
IIRC serif fonts are generally more legible than sans serif. It's interesting just how difficult to read some medieval letterforms are.
0 -
It was early Specsavers marketing.Munsford0 said:
That's very pretty but I really have to concentrate to make out individual letters let alone words. Did they do it deliberately to keep the commoners down?rjsterry said:
IIRC serif fonts are generally more legible than sans serif. It's interesting just how difficult to read some medieval letterforms are.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
