Thread: English Pet Peeves & Common Mistakes

Originally Posted by bitpicker

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...
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.
Robin

It is interesting as this is one of the FEW things I actually remember from school!! This one and maybe vs. may be.

I wonder if it is a case of this distinction being phased out? As one of the examples I found comes from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address!
[quote:1jsbymr3]But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress....irst_draft.jpg

[/quote:1jsbymr3]

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground."

I see absolutely no reason to have 'can not' here instead of 'cannot' - not even based on the distinction discussed in the article linked to in my previous message. If it were the negation of the predicate rather than the modal, the quote would mean 'we can fail to dedicate, fail to consecrate, fail to hallow this ground'. I suppose that is not what it originally meant, or is it?

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground."

I see absolutely no reason to have 'can not' here instead of 'cannot' - not even based on the distinction discussed in the article linked to in my previous message. If it were the negation of the predicate rather than the modal, the quote would mean 'we can fail to dedicate, fail to consecrate, fail to hallow this ground'. I suppose that is not what it originally meant, or is it?

Robin

If you look at the second article you linked...

See, the negation in can not could either negate the modal can (i.e., I am unable to do something) or the predicate (i.e, I am able to not do something), whereas the negation in cannot can only negate the modal. So I personally try to use cannot when I want to negate the modal and can not when I want to negate the predicate. This distinction is relevant to me because I actually do intend to negate the predicates of such sentences sometimes. Most reasonable people do not. If you are one of the people who don’t do this, then there is no reason for the choice of cannot/can not to matter to you. That’s not entirely true; some people argue that can not must be used when you want to emphasize the not, and I’ll drink to that.

I believe that when I use can not and when President Lincoln used it, we are/were, both using it as "some people argue that can not must be used when you want to emphasize the not, and I’ll drink to that."

Because as you know my dear Robin... I was never taught about modals and such...

So, the speech would be spoken as..

"But, in a larger sense, we can NOT dedicate...we can NOT consecrate...we can NOT hallow this ground."

Originally Posted by E-learner

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.

Oh, the I post something and you find the perfect challenge to it!!!

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I believe that when I use can not and when President Lincoln used it, we are/were, both using it as "some people argue that can not must be used when you want to emphasize the not, and I’ll drink to that."

In other words, you both do/did not agree with the interpretation of "can not" given in that article, do/did you?
I can not ask President Lincoln, but what, if anything, does this sentence from the article mean to you?
"I can not eat the cake if you want to save it for later."
My version of what it might mean:
"It is a horrible thing for me to do, to eat the cake, and I'm not going to do it, if you want to save it for later."

"I can not eat the cake if you want to save it for later."

In a speech situation one could say that, stressing the 'not', and mean "If you want to save the cake for later, then I won't eat it now." But it is a highly unlikely utterance, I suppose native speakers would rather phrase it like I did here.

"I cannot eat the cake if you want to save it for later" puts stress on the fist syllable of 'cannot'. Then it clearly means "I am not able to eat the cake, as you prohibit it". Not sure whether anyone would say it like that either.

In writing, if you want to make sure it's one meaning and not the other, rephrase the whole sentence. The distinction of 'cannot' vs. 'can not' is simply too weak to be clear.

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

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

It seems to me that I almost guessed. Thank you Robin very much!

I had not heard this one in YEARS!!! The newscaster on the radio today said it and I was like "No way!!!" I believe it is pronounced this way in the New York area which may be why I have not heard it lately.

The word is "idea" yet people pronounce it "idear."

In fact that is a linguistic phenomenon in English called 'intrusive r'.

I got another common mistake: writing 'loose' where 'lose' is intended.

Robin

Originally Posted by bitpicker

In fact that is a linguistic phenomenon in English called 'intrusive r'.

I got another common mistake: writing 'loose' where 'lose' is intended.

Robin

yup, yup, yup... add to that list... choose and chose, shoot and shot! I have to think every time about these!!!

Interesting wiki about the intrusive R. I never knew it had a technical name! draw[ɹ]ing or withdraw[ɹ]al... now that I think about those two.. I do recall hearing people pronounce those two that way as well.

Is there also one about dropping your Ts? I had a boss who once did that. He is Italian (Vito) he dropped them so much so that when he would say 'bottle' it just came out 'ba-ul'.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

yup, yup, yup... add to that list... choose and chose, shoot and shot! I have to think every time about these!!!

At least those are different forms of the same word, not two different words altogether.

Is there also one about dropping your Ts? I had a boss who once did that. He is Italian (Vito) he dropped them so much so that when he would say 'bottle' it just came out 'ba-ul'.

In many dialects you get a glottal stop instead of a fully pronounced 't' (or 'd', for instance in "be'room"). A glottal stop is a kind of click sound you make with your glottis, breaking the air flow; it's not so much a sound as a short pause.

Robin

So, I do a number of dumb phonetic mistakes..... but this is won I don't do and I thought it was funny... a friend of mine posted it on FaceBook...

"for those of you who don't know Cheri and Rick XXXX and who are looking for a great place to vacation in Arkansas--they just one inn of the year for 2010 for the US!"

She followed that up with ...."wow I need more coffee--I meant won! not one..."

I figured I would swing this over to this thread....

Originally Posted by translationsnmru

I am not sure if I ever had to say this word outloud (btw, is outloud actually a word?), but IF I had, I would probably pronounce it as "TEMP-lit". At least that's how it sounds in my brain right now.

Yes! IMHO, most people use "out loud" because they don't know any better but according to the article, it just might be the location I am in!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outloud
Main Entry: out loud
Function: adverb
Date: 1821
: loudly enough to be heard : aloud

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aloud
Main Entry: aloud
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈlau̇d\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from 1a- + loud
Date: 13th century
1 archaic : in a loud manner : loudly
2 : with the speaking voice <read aloud>

Here is an article I found about the two words...

Out loud vs Aloud

You often hear the words aloud and out loud being said almost anywhere. Many are thinking that they are two synonymous words that can be used interchangeably. In fact, they are. Both aloud and out loud can be considered as adverbs. They modify words, preferably verbs, rather than nouns. However, some language experts say that they can be different. Read on to know what they are.

By definition, aloud is an adverb that can mean three things. When used in a sentence, it could often mean that you say something with a louder voice than normal like in the sentence, “They cried aloud in sorrow.” Another meaning could be that you actually say something rather than mentally thinking about it. For example, “She read the novel aloud.” Lastly, it could mean that you must say something using normal speaking voice rather than doing it in a whispered manner such as in the case of, “The students cannot talk aloud within the premises of the library.” Moreover, the use of aloud is regarded as archaic or old fashioned. Even with such regard, the use of this adverb is preferable in formal talk or formal writing.

The term ‘out loud’ is still used in a similar way but is more appropriately used in selected occasions only. Some grammar experts claim that out loud is the idiom equivalent of the adverb aloud. An idiom by the way is a word that is stylistically or figuratively used by native speakers of the language. Similarly, others say that it is the term used in the colloquial sense. It is colloquial because the term is used in ordinary day to day conversation rather than in formal talk, writing or speech. That’s why out loud is both chatty and informal in nature.

A good example of using the term is in the sentence, “Don’t cry out loud!” or “I always said these words out loud.”

To avoid further confusion and as a standard rule, it is best to use aloud for almost all occasions except in casual or ordinary conversations. Overall, aloud and out loud have the same meanings but they can be different because:

1. Out loud is used colloquially or during more informal talks as opposed to the use of aloud.

2. Aloud is the more archaic adverb that means to say something in a louder intensity as opposed to the term out loud.

Read more: Difference Between Out loud and Aloud | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/lan...#ixzz0nGjng42d

where were wear ware we're weir , and possibly a few others lurking near... (Apologies if these are already above) Yes, some are rare. I believe 'ware is in poetry, as clipped form of beware.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I had not heard this one in YEARS!!! The newscaster on the radio today said it and I was like "No way!!!" I believe it is pronounced this way in the New York area which may be why I have not heard it lately.

The word is "idea" yet people pronounce it "idear."

You should talk to someone with a heavy Boston accent. One of the biggest features is the addition and subtraction of the letter "R" is unusual places. Many "R"s turn into "H"s (pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd being the famous example) which is the most well-known aspect of the accent, but there's also some "R" addition. "Idear" is one of the greatest offenders.

I also have a few additions to this thread's theme:

Disinterested does NOT mean uninterested. This is common in sports commentary. "Player X really looks disinterested out there." Well, I'd hope the referee is disinterested, but I'm sure the player isn't.

This is exclusively a written error, but it drives me crazy: "would/could/should of" instead of "would've/should've/could've". It's just sloppy, but I see it all the time on the internet.


Another common mistake is the overuse of "so-and-so and I" when referencing the object.

Ted and I received an award from the president.
The president gave an award to Ted and I me.

I think people have been drilled enough that "Ted and me" sounds uneducated when used as the subject of the sentence that "Ted and me" has come to be viewed as uneducated in all senses; even when it's grammatically correct.

Also, at least half of the population of the United States has no idea what irony is.

"Hey, we have the same t-shirt! That's so ironic!".

No, it's not ironic. It's a coincidence.

Originally Posted by почемучка

Also, at least half of the population of the United States has no idea what irony is.

"Hey, we have the same t-shirt! That's so ironic!".

No, it's not ironic. It's a coincidence.

I love being pedantic . It could be ironic depending on situation!

Originally Posted by quartztwo

Originally Posted by почемучка

Also, at least half of the population of the United States has no idea what irony is.

"Hey, we have the same t-shirt! That's so ironic!".

No, it's not ironic. It's a coincidence.

I love being pedantic . It could be ironic depending on situation!

I suppose if the people wearing the t-shirts were hipsters! Usually the misuse of irony is pretty clear-cut though.

Speaking of pedantry, I got the following email from a friend recently. It's one thing to deal with pedantry on a language message board, but this guy received a lecture from his thesaurus(!)

POMPOUS TWIT or SOMEONE SO INSECURE THAT HE'LL USE POINTLESSLY BIG WORDS IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOOK SMART

what is this?

i'm writing a paper (hence the odd nightly hour) and i was using the built in thesaurus on my mac. and i input utilize. which gives me a few synonyms. along with the scolding.

there's this "Word Note" section below the synonyms where DFW just told me off.

DFW, show yourself!

(full word note entry below)

--------

WORD NOTE
utilize
This is a puff-word. Since it does nothing that good old use doesn't do, its extra letters and syllables don't make a writer seem smarter. Rather, using utilize makes you seem like either a pompous twit or someone so insecure that he'll use pointlessly big words in an attempt to look smart. The same is true for the noun utilization, for vehicle as used for car, for residence as used for home, for indicate as used for say, for presently, at present, at this time, and at the present time as used for now, and so on. What's worth remembering about puff-words is something that good writing teachers spend a lot of time drumming into undergrads: "Formal writing" does not mean gratuitously fancy writing; it means clean, clear, maximally considerate writing.
— DFW

haha priceless

I'll have to remember when I mark student essays to write "makes you look like a pompous twit" on margins

and bonus points for a jab at hipsters!

Originally Posted by quartztwo

Originally Posted by почемучка

Also, at least half of the population of the United States has no idea what irony is.

"Hey, we have the same t-shirt! That's so ironic!".

No, it's not ironic. It's a coincidence.

I love being pedantic . It could be ironic depending on situation!

quartztwo! Welcome to MasterRussian!!

My daughter's English teacher uses the song Ironic by Alanis Morissette when she teaches her class about irony...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v9yUVgrmPY