Had you noticed how much corruption is occurring in the English language? 'Your' instead of 'you're' and 'off of' instead of . . . heaven alone knows what - just to demonstrate a couple.
My guess is that over the years radio and television have enabled everyone to hear a wide application of the use and context of language. In contemporary times there is little doubt that texting has proliferated the use of many rather pitiful short forms. But sadly, I feel that poor education has encouraged little in the way of the teaching of reasonable grammar or spelling. Language always has to evolve, but the current trend towards the adoption of lazy or misused words and expressions seems particularly unfortunate.
So I thought I should list just a few of my absolute pet hates and give some kind of comment/example/alternative:
My all time pet hate is the the misuse of the word 'OF' as in 'I really should of paid attention in English at school!' That should be 'I really should HAVE paid attention in English at school!' The 'of' is rubbish and comes from completely failing to realise that the short form is 'should've' or 'could've' where the ''ve' stands for 'HAVE' not 'OF'!
'Your' is used to denote ownership - 'This is your toy'. 'You're' tells of an event or existence and is short for 'You are' - 'You're going to ruin your language, so you're an idiot!'. Whereas 'Your supposed to hand in your work to show your learning something' has no actual meaning at all.
'Its' is also to do with ownership - 'Stroke its tummy'. Whereas 'it's' is short for 'it is' - 'It's just not fair' or 'If it's not careful it will break its finger'. This is where 'it's' is known as an exception to a grammatical rule - please keep reading!
'Comprise' has almost exactly the same interpretation as 'consists of' - so 'comprises of' actually translates to 'consists of of' which has no practical meaning at all. Comprise has no OF after it! I don't (short for 'I do not') understand why people use 'big' words they don't fully understand, when simple words would work just as well (actually better because they don't reveal the user's poor grip of English). Note: In the case of 'user's' this is short for 'of the user' which would be put after the noun instead of before the noun. If it were to refer to many users it would be 'users' '. 'Its', above, is an exception!
'Off of' is an expression I do not really understand as I have never had any occasion when I have been at such a loss for words that I should have needed to use that particular combination. All I can imagine is that it means 'from' or simply 'off'. As a combination of two words I cannot see that it has any actual meaning at all. In colloquial speech perhaps it's OK; in writing it is quite extraordinarily dreadful.
'It cost me forty pound.' 'Forty pound' is what exactly? I think that was meant to be - 'it cost me forty pounds'. 'Can I lend fifty quid please?' - I don't know, can you? 'Can I borrow fifty quid please?' is probably what is intended!
There are many more examples, but I'm sure you get the general drift so I'll leave it at that for now. There is of course the danger that I shall also commit some grammatical/spelling crime (if I've not already done so) which will be picked-up by some eagle-eyed reader - so I'd best quit whilst I'm ahead.
It is in business letters where this bad language is at its most unfortunate. When you receive a letter from a reputable company and there are three or four grammatical/spelling faux-pas, it is the perception of the company that suffers. In my opinion this is rightly so as it indicates a deterioration in recruitment standards or monitoring which is indicative of the current state of the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment