Thread: English Pet Peeves & Common Mistakes

8 depending on how I count.

Robin

Originally Posted by rockzmom

How many errors can YOU find????? (yes, I did delete some parts of the email, to protect the innocent and all that jazz.)

allL ,their, apart of/from ?

Originally Posted by vox05

apart of/from

a(?) part of

As you alll know... at 7:00 p.m at the... The festival is being (will be) held from October 23rd-25th. It will cost $10 and a_part of the proceeds for the festival goes to (will go to) Breast Cancer awareness. I will be attending and going to the reception. I hope to see you all there.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

As you alll know... at 7:00 p.m. at the... The festival is being (will be) held from October 23rd-25th. It will cost $10 and a_part of the proceeds for the festival goes to (will go to) Breast Cancer awareness. I will be attending and going to the reception. I hope to see you all there.

Robin, you just had a typo with the "." for the p.m., she had the first "." and was missing the second one.

I also just did not like the wording "of the proceeds for the festival" I probably would have written "of the proceeds from the festival will go to"

I should post some of the script from her movie... talk about errors!!! It makes my English look amazingly perfect!

So, our dear Master Admin posted "There were a man and a woman sitting on the bench."

That just did not "sit" right with me. I was thinking, should it be "There was a man..." ? I really didn't know why it just did not feel right so I sent it to my mom and here is what she wrote back:

Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom

Easier - switch it around -- A man and a woman were sitting on the bench.

Opening "there" phrase/clause is a new bug of mine ... what there? where there? Oh, yes, this campaign to rid the world of opening "there" is a Herculean project, tilting at windmills, carrying drops of water in a teaspoon across the ocean ...

Now, would this be okay with the way it was translated from Russian?
На скамейке сидели мужчина и женщина.

There's a reason there are sentences which begin with 'there' or would you rather have this as "A reason is, sentences are, which begin with 'there'"?

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

There's a reason there are sentences which begin with 'there' or would you rather have this as "A reason is, sentences are, which begin with 'there'"?

Robin

Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom

"There's a reason there are sentences that begin with 'there'" may be true once in a while, but I think you can almost always rearrange the sentence so it begins with the subject and verb rather than "A reason is ..."

Example:
There are three grocery stores along historic Charles St.
Three grocery stores are located along historic Charles St.

My personal fight at the moment.

Next one... "near miss" I heard this one on the radio again this morning and even though from my research about the phrase it seems to actually be "acceptable" to use this expression... I still cringe when I hear it.

So, I guess with this one, it is a case of letting non-Natives know this is the "correct" thing to say?? Because if you actually said "near collision" people would look at you really oddly!

Here are some notes about "near miss" and "near collision"

Originally Posted by Keith Cowing, editor of NASA Watch

The aviation community also regularly uses the somewhat oxymoronic term "near miss" to describe an instance where two airplanes almost collide. I have always wondered why the much more accurate phrase "near collision" is never used. All I can come up with is that some anonymous advisory committee staffer sought to coin a term that would not upset people unduly (or attract unwanted media attention!). Update: I am now told this term had its origin in World War II.

Copyright © 2001 Reston Communications®
http://www.nasawatch.com/safety.html

Originally Posted by Columbia Journalism Review

Jim Benes of WBBM Newsradio 78, Chicago's all-news station, emailed recently to report a running battle — certain morning-drive staff members vs. evening-drive, as it happened — over the phrase "near miss." The morning people, he said, thought the term could be confusing: "After all, if you nearly miss something, don't you hit it?" At first blush, "near miss" does seem to be a contradiction in terms, even though it's deeply ingrained in the language. But Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994), tracing the phrase to World War II, notes its ubiquity and concludes that "despite its apparent lack of logic, it is not an error." Fowler's Modern English Usage defines a near miss simply as "a miss that was nearly a hit." (That's from the 1968 edition; the 1996 Fowler's omits the phrase, which suggests that it's no longer deemed worthy of discussion.) As an alternative, "near-collision" is unambiguous and unchallengeable. But WBBM's evening-drive cadre is also on target, as it were, with near miss.

Copyright © Columbia Journalism Review
http://www.cjr.org/lc/lc-n.asp

Originally Posted by Paul Brians, Professor of English, Washington State University

It is futile to protest that "near miss" should be "near collision." This expression is a condensed version of something like "a miss that came very near to being a collision" and is similar to "narrow escape." Everyone knows what is meant by it and almost everyone uses it. It should be noted that the expression can also be used in the sense of almost succeeding in striking a desired target: "His Cointreau soufflé was a near miss."

Copyright © Paul Brians
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html

Originally Posted by Columbia Guide to Standard American English

Logical quibbles insisting that this locution really means "near hit" show no sign of unseating this Standard idiom. It means "a close call" as distinguished from a miss that never truly threatened to hit at all. It's used especially of airplanes that nearly collide and of all sorts of shooting results, and you should be aware that some stylebooks now insist on near collision or something similar.

Copyright © 1993 Columbia University Press.
http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/4027.html

Originally Posted by Rockzmom's Mom

"There's a reason there are sentences that begin with 'there'" may be true once in a while, but I think you can almost always rearrange the sentence so it begins with the subject and verb rather than "A reason is ..."

Example:
There are three grocery stores along historic Charles St.
Three grocery stores are located along historic Charles St.
]

Sure you can always rearrange the sentence, just like you can always use another language entirely, the question is, why? What use is it? This aversion against sentences with 'there' is right up there with the aversion against ending sentences with prepositions. The latter was a rule in Latin, and humanist grammarians, when they began to look at English, decided that Latin was the most perfect of languages, so anything that deviated in their language from Latin was a sign of inferiority. Silliness.

It is a lot easier to teach someone the first example sentence than the second; the first uses 'to be' and simple present, the second uses 'locate' and passive. It is more complicated, but doesn't say anything new.

Robin

I don't like when people appear (I think) to mix up "chance" and "risk" when they speak.

For example, someone might (wrongly IMHO) say:
There is a chance that I die in a car accident if I drive on the Autobahn.
There is a chance that their marriage does not work out and they have to get divorced.
There is a chance that my house has been burgled when I get home, because I forgot to lock the door.

I think that in these sentences the word "risk" should be used, not "chance".

Chance implies that there is almost a positive thing if this happens. Obviously car accidents, divorces and burglaries are negative things.

However, you might say:

"There is a chance that I win the lottery and never have to work again..."
"There is a good chance that I meet "Mr Right" if I go to the ball.."
"If I start a mine on this spot, there is a good chance that I might find gold."

Obviously these would be a good things, and therefore it's a chance.

Do you agree?

Originally Posted by Johanna

However, you might say:

"There is a chance that I win the lottery and never have to work again..."
"There is a good chance that I meet "Mr Right" if I go to the ball.."
"If I start a mine on this spot, there is a good chance that I might find gold."

Obviously these would be a good things, and therefore it's a chance.

Do you agree?

Well, at least you certainly wouldn't insert 'risk' here. I think people tend to see 'chance' as a synonym for 'probability' and feel that the positive connotation is absent. Is there a 50:50 chance or a 50:50 risk? Then there are phrases such as 'chances are that...' but no 'risks are that...'.

I still think 'risk' is the better choice in your first set of examples, as it definitely does have a negative connotation.

Cannot, can not & can not only - when to use each:

I noticed that a number of people are using "can (space) not" when they should be using cannot (or can't). I had a thread about this back in December and figured as it was very short, I would just swing it over here and we could talk about it.

Here is the passage from the Writer's Guide to Style and Usage, p.43) regarding cannot, can not and can not only:

"Cannot, can not, can not only. Cannot is the preferred form except for the rare instance when a writer wishes to emphasize the not, for example, in juxtaposition to can statements: 'You can run and you can hide, but you can not escape me.' When can not only is used, the trick is to remember that not is working with only as a conjunction; can is an auxiliary that must be parallel with the rest of the statement: 'The restaurant can not only serve a delectable lasagna, but also [can] bake [not bakes] a sinful chocolate cake.' "

Or

The differences between cannot and can not. "You would use can not when the 'not' forms part of another construction such as 'not only.'

Originally Posted by rockzmom

The differences between cannot and can not. "You would use can not when the 'not' forms part of another construction such as 'not only.'

Is there a difference between "I cannot dig" and "I can not dig"?

It would be very convenient if there was the same difference there as between "I am not able to dig" and "I am able not to dig" but I suspect there isn't, is there?

Originally Posted by E-learner

Originally Posted by rockzmom

The differences between cannot and can not. "You would use can not when the 'not' forms part of another construction such as 'not only.'

Is there a difference between "I cannot dig" and "I can not dig"?

It would be very convenient if there was the same difference there as between "I am not able to dig" and "I am able not to dig" but I suspect there isn't, is there?

e-Learner! You are sooo good at this game!!!

ROBIN... I trust you will save me if I am wrong here!!!

YES! HOWEVER, you would need to have more to the sentence for there to be a clear understanding to the person you are speaking/writing to.

1. I cannot dig to China.
2. I can not dig because my hand is broken.

The first one is stating that the "cannot" leaves no possibility of being able to do something.
The second one stressing NOT over the can and the reason for the "can not" and there is an exception and a possiblity.

PART 2 here.
"I am able not to dig" this does not flow correctly. Maybe it would be, "I am able but cannot dig" ??? OR "I am able but am not digging?"

Originally Posted by rockzmom

1. I cannot dig to China.
2. I can not dig because my hand is broken.

The first one is stating that the "cannot" leaves no possibility of being able to do something.
The second one stressing NOT over the can and the reason for the "can not" and there is an exception and a possiblity.

I have a small question about "can not".
What will you say about the "May not"?
Is it close to "can not" via meaning or not?
I may not write = я могу не писать (It depends on my mood. If I want I will write. If I don't want I will not write)
I can not write = я могу не писать. (I can write, but I can read as well. If you insist I will read only ????????????????)

Originally Posted by rockzmom

e-Learner! You are sooo good at this game!!!

I wish I new what the game is but thank you anyway.

you would need to have more to the sentence for there to be a clear understanding to the person you are speaking/writing to.

1. I cannot dig to China.

I thought that "I can dig" can be used if I want to say that I have necessary skills or strength for digging, and "I cannot dig" - if I don't have them. I was wrong?

1. I cannot dig to China.
2. I can not dig because my hand is broken.

The first one is stating that the "cannot" leaves no possibility of being able to do something.
The second one stressing NOT over the can and the reason for the "can not" and there is an exception and a possiblity.

This is the first time I have ever heard of such a distinction. According to what I learned in school a long time ago, 'cannot' is the common orthographic form while 'can not' is not. Prescriptive dictionaries agree:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/cannot-or-can-not/

However, here's a good point regarding a possible distinction:

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2 ... -be-split/

So while there is no defined distinction as far as prescriptive dictionaries and "official" grammar, if such a thing exists, are concerned, it is possible to define a distinction.

But both your examples are 'cannot' or 'can't' to me.

"I am able not to dig" this does not flow correctly. Maybe it would be, "I am able but cannot dig" ??? OR "I am able but am not digging?"

[/quote]

I am unable to dig. I am able to keep from digging.

"I am able not to dig" probably just sounds silly. But something like "I am perfectly able not to do anything silly, thank you very much" is a sentence which follows the same pattern and may actually appear in a conversation.

Robin

Originally Posted by ekaterinak

I have a small question about "can not".
What will you say about {the} "May not"?
Is it close to "can not" in meaning or not?
I may not write = я могу не писать (It depends on my mood. If I want I will write. If I don't want I will not write)
I can not write = я могу не писать. (I can write, but I can read as well. If you insist I will read only ????????????????)

All instances of 'I cannot write' mean 'I am unable to write' - я не могу писать. 'I may not write' means that I am as yet undecided whether I will write or not. There's no question of capability, it's just that I may or may not be in the mood for writing.

Robin

Originally Posted by E-learner

I thought that "I can dig" can be used if I want to say that I have necessary skills or strength for digging, and "I cannot dig" - if I don't have them. I was wrong?

No, that's entirely correct.

Robin