Comments on: Trouble with “Did” and “Had” http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:00:10 -0600 hourly 1 By: Rod http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/comment-page-1/#comment-138309 Rod Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:07:45 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1658#comment-138309 had I seen that episode!! had I seen that episode!!

]]> By: mand http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/comment-page-1/#comment-88722 mand Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:44:19 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1658#comment-88722 Sorry, i seem to have given you the wrong episode of <i>QI</i>. Never mind, it's worth a watch anyway, especially if you don't get it where you live. Sorry, i seem to have given you the wrong episode of QI. Never mind, it’s worth a watch anyway, especially if you don’t get it where you live.

]]> By: mand http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/comment-page-1/#comment-88714 mand Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:13:21 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1658#comment-88714 I agree with you, Ashley, though i would put it more gently. My own fascination with 'correct' usage is because i enjoy it, but i am descriptivist, not proscriptivist. Stephen Fry said the same in <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hq4mg" rel="nofollow">this week's <i>QI</i></a>; he claimed to hate people being sticklers for 'correct English' while ignoring that natural language changes over time, but the fact he admitted to correcting 'less' to 'fewer' in the past tells us he notices and cares about these details! 80) I agree with you, Ashley, though i would put it more gently. My own fascination with ‘correct’ usage is because i enjoy it, but i am descriptivist, not proscriptivist.

Stephen Fry said the same in this week’s QI; he claimed to hate people being sticklers for ‘correct English’ while ignoring that natural language changes over time, but the fact he admitted to correcting ‘less’ to ‘fewer’ in the past tells us he notices and cares about these details!
80)

]]> By: Ashley http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/comment-page-1/#comment-86317 Ashley Sat, 21 Feb 2009 06:55:55 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1658#comment-86317 I agree with Peter-- Check out original Germanic (Proto-German) word order and subsequently the shift in English grammar. You may not want to use Greek, but certainly English word order was once very, very close to German. Besides what does 'correct' mean? You people who tout "correct" grammar are really forgetting that you don't speak "original" grammar... just what you believe is acceptable (which is a construct). As long as people exist, there will be no such thing as 'correct' in any language. All that matters is that people understand. Embrace change. Remember that there are a lot of people in this world who do not speak a "proper language" and have suffered for it. Please don't spread these kinds of feelings. Language is very personal as I'm sure you all attest to. Also, I find that many people who are well-trained in "English" are not well-trained in "Language." If no one ever made a mistake we would all speak the same language, and there would be eight cases, no past perfect conditional subjunctive indicative aortist (jk) But really, English is a creole of sorts. To say what is "proper" is just plain silly. English hasn't been "proper" since the Norman invasion (1066 AD) or even before that (Vikings/Celts). Also, this war between English and American, EX CETERA is just ridiculous. We speak different languages, just leave it at that. Be amused by all means, but being annoyed over differences is pointless. There's a difference between something that may not meet your standards and is just down-right wrong. (i.e. did/had vs cavalry/calvary) When it creeps into the media (BBC or American) consider the standards of English to be changing. (not that they determine it, but I'd say that's pretty heavily changed at that point...) Heaven forbid! I agree with Peter–

Check out original Germanic (Proto-German) word order and subsequently the shift in English grammar. You may not want to use Greek, but certainly English word order was once very, very close to German.

Besides what does ‘correct’ mean? You people who tout “correct” grammar are really forgetting that you don’t speak “original” grammar… just what you believe is acceptable (which is a construct).

As long as people exist, there will be no such thing as ‘correct’ in any language. All that matters is that people understand. Embrace change.

Remember that there are a lot of people in this world who do not speak a “proper language” and have suffered for it. Please don’t spread these kinds of feelings. Language is very personal as I’m sure you all attest to.

Also, I find that many people who are well-trained in “English” are not well-trained in “Language.” If no one ever made a mistake we would all speak the same language, and there would be eight cases, no past perfect conditional subjunctive indicative aortist (jk) But really, English is a creole of sorts. To say what is “proper” is just plain silly.

English hasn’t been “proper” since the Norman invasion (1066 AD) or even before that (Vikings/Celts). Also, this war between English and American, EX CETERA is just ridiculous. We speak different languages, just leave it at that. Be amused by all means, but being annoyed over differences is pointless.

There’s a difference between something that may not meet your standards and is just down-right wrong. (i.e. did/had vs cavalry/calvary)

When it creeps into the media (BBC or American) consider the standards of English to be changing. (not that they determine it, but I’d say that’s pretty heavily changed at that point…) Heaven forbid!

]]> By: Grace S. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/trouble-with-did-and-had/comment-page-1/#comment-84669 Grace S. Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:40:10 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=1658#comment-84669 Suzie (#23), that is an example of a mispronunciation/misspelling cycle that is difficult to break. What speakers really are saying is "should've" (when they're being more conversational than precise), which is completely acceptable; however, hearers assume they're saying "should of" and don't know it's a contraction, so they write it "should of" and that perpetuates the problem. I would guess that "should've" is hardly ever written, even by those who know better, because they most often write it out completely, "should have." RUGRLn (#17), you could say "If I didn't know better . . .," for example, because you'd be speaking about a current situation in the negative. Suzie (#23), that is an example of a mispronunciation/misspelling cycle that is difficult to break. What speakers really are saying is “should’ve” (when they’re being more conversational than precise), which is completely acceptable; however, hearers assume they’re saying “should of” and don’t know it’s a contraction, so they write it “should of” and that perpetuates the problem. I would guess that “should’ve” is hardly ever written, even by those who know better, because they most often write it out completely, “should have.”

RUGRLn (#17), you could say “If I didn’t know better . . .,” for example, because you’d be speaking about a current situation in the negative.

]]>