For what it's worth Big C, you're grammar for "saw" is wrong, :I even Word explains it should be changed to "seen"
Now, hopefully that will be the end of it :evil:;):)
Printable View
For what it's worth Big C, you're grammar for "saw" is wrong, :I even Word explains it should be changed to "seen"
Now, hopefully that will be the end of it :evil:;):)
If you did see/saw (marjory daw) him he was the one with the 'saw' sticking ooot his bum ;)
And who made you the authority on grammar anyway Col:question:since when did you become the Georgdubleya of NMS.........God forbid but have you ever thought you might just be WRONG :evil:;)
You really need to do some work laddie and let this go:blackeye: :p:D:approve:
He must be writing a BIG reply:D Thank goodness I'm in Bristol 400 miles away this week :p:D:approve:
Are you kidding Alan:eek: Its Colin we're talking about :p:D:approve:Quote:
quote:Now, hopefully that will be the end of it
Waiting for the next installment is certainly getting my post count up :p:D:approve:
Oooh if the word grammar check corrects it I MUST be wrong! :eek:Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Bonnie Scotland
For what it's worth Big C, you're grammar for "saw" is wrong, :I even Word explains it should be changed to "seen"
Now, hopefully that will be the end of it :evil:;):)
Whoa! You're the one that dug me up on my grammar Big G! I was done with doing that!Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Big Gordy
And who made you the authority on grammar anyway Col
<peeks in at thread, shakes head, wanders away>
Oh boy...
<wanders back for a mo>
Who the hell is This Burrell person? He's a celebrity WHY exactly???
..or is it just another simple case of some pathetic wannabe trying to get their sad 15 Minutes whoring themself out to the media?
"Oh look at me... I've suffered such a hardship.. I CAMPED OUT for 4 days with only 200 media lackies around and a 5 star hotel a short Limo trip away"
Are the public in this country so shallow and gullible to belive this is 'entertainment?' :evil::blackeye::eek::disapprove::p
Me I do;)Quote:
quote:Originally posted by low_n_loud1
<peeks in at thread, shakes head, wanders away>
Oh boy...
<wanders back for a mo>
Who the hell is This Burrell person? He's a celebrity WHY exactly???
..or is it just another simple case of some pathetic wannabe trying to get their sad 15 Minutes whoring themself out to the media?
"Oh look at me... I've suffered such a hardship.. I CAMPED OUT for 4 days with only 200 media lackies around and a 5 star hotel a short Limo trip away"
Are the public in this country so shallow and gullible to belive this is 'entertainment?' :evil::blackeye::eek::disapprove::p
groan.... <shakes head> ;)Quote:
quote:
Me I do;)
p.s.... Just a nibble this time?? you're learning! ;);):p:D
(I'll put the 'wind-up' hat away for today ;):p:evil::D:D:cool:)
Ooops! You remember you said it was all a bit of fun and not serious?
Inexorably sucked into a response....Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Big Col
<sighs> I'm afraid you're wrong Big G. My sentence was in the simple past tense, which means either the time period has finished, as in "I saw three movies last week." or that the time is clear, as in "I saw that movie on Thursday" or "You might have saw me on the Arbroath run". Had my sentence been in the present perfect tense, which is used when the time period has NOT finished, as in "I have seen three movies this week" or when the time is not specific, as in "I have seen that movie already." or "You might have seen me on a run." then you would be correct in using "seen" and not "saw". :)
Think the change from 'I' to 'You' affects the result or the use of the word 'have', so I don't think the examples demonstrate your argument.
The following sentences could be used instead, thus avoiding the great seen-saw debate:
'You possibly observed me on the Arbroath run'
'You may have noticed me on the Arbroath run'
Anyway, wouldn't it be the MINIs that everyone would be clocking?
:)
Don't worry Steph:D Big Col and I until recently worked together so we're used to hurling abuse at each other on a regular basis;) It was I who told him to go and buy his mini after all:approve: So don't panic:D it is all fun and not too serious :p:D:approve:
Col - Having read through some of the discussion in this post:sleepy: I thought it might be worthwhile sharing something I learnt a few years back.
I went to a lecture by some leading linguist (I was accompanying a bit of totty:kiss: I was seeing at the time:I) and he said that there is strictly no right and wrong grammar, rather it’s more about what the majority of people use. Languages evolve, usually influenced by the media and methods of communication at the time.
My point being when Big G called for a vote:approve:, this was actually a very good way of establishing what is acceptable:D.
If people like you had your way we’d be all using ‘Ye Olde Worlde’ English. Time to move on Col:eek::blackeye:;)!
I don't think Col is looking for everyone, as you put it, to speak in Ye Olde Worlde english (or Scottish as the case may be), I think he just wants to speak proper if you ken what I mean like ken!! However, if we did 'move on', plebspeak, I fear, is the language that would go as the majority, as there appears to be far more plebs with their new language that cannae speak proper due to lack of people correcting them, and it DRIVES ME MAD:mad:, I think I'll stick with Col on this one (even though he did get his grammar wrong!;)), I'd rather peoples speaked proper ken like, than spoked like a pleb!!:p
Julz - Plebs have and always will speak like plebs just try talking to an inbred Aberdonnian! The lecture bloke actually covered 'The plebs' in his lecture, he said that they have very little influence on the language of educated people.
I agree with you on 'Chavspeak' it's awful and admire your patriotism but Scottish isn't a language :p unless of course your talking about Gaelic which I doubt.
Aye, and England doesn't mean the whole of Great Britain!!:evil: I'd rather say I spoke scottish than english any day!!:p:D And you might find this useful!!;)
So moving on means a lack of education??? Correct grammar is not old fashioned or out of date just because people are too lazy to use it or have not been taught it correctly in the first place. Note:I'm not meaning anyone here. My grammar corrections on here are a wind up and I'm not saying anyone here is stoopid (apart from Iain).Quote:
quote:Originally posted by bad dog mini
If people like you had your way we’d be all using ‘Ye Olde Worlde’ English. Time to move on Col:eek::blackeye:;)!
It is actually.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by bad dog mini
but Scottish isn't a language
http://scotsyett.com/default.asp
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/ScotLit/ASLS/NoFrames/ScotLang2.html
Col - I stand corrected, Scottish is a language, my appologies!
Julz - Have a look at what Col's posted is that how you speak?;) You don't post on here like that:p
Col - Read my post again, the point I made was that 'correct grammar' is an invalid statement. Grammar is a moving concept and it's driven by what is the acceptable norm for the educated. What you were taught at school is not 'correct grammar' rather what was acceptable at the time. Things do and have moved on.Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Big Col
So moving on means a lack of education??? Correct grammar is not old fashioned or out of date just because people are too lazy to use it or have not been taught it correctly in the first place. Note:I'm not meaning anyone here. My grammar corrections on here are a wind up and I'm not saying anyone here is stoopid (apart from Iain).
Yes I know your winding people up:D and so am I:p, and yes Iain is a numpty;)!
That explains why we think differently then seeing as Col and I are about the same age, and were therefore at school at about the same time, and you are so much older!!;):p:DQuote:
quote:Originally posted by bad dog mini
What you were taught at school is not 'correct grammar' rather what was acceptable at the time. Things do and have moved on.
What in 8 years? I doubt it, but nice try sweetie ;)
[quote]quote:Originally posted by Julz
We also went to school Julz...Quote:
Originally posted by bad dog mini
That explains why we think differently then seeing as Col and I are about the same age, and were therefore at school at about the same time, and you are so much older!!;):p:D
How can "correct grammar" be an invalid statement? Even when things move on there is a grammatical standard for any given moment in time and anything written that matches that grammatical standard at that moment in time has "correct grammar".Quote:
quote:Originally posted by bad dog mini
Col - Read my post again, the point I made was that 'correct grammar' is an invalid statement. Grammar is a moving concept and it's driven by what is the acceptable norm for the educated. What you were taught at school is not 'correct grammar' rather what was acceptable at the time. Things do and have move on.
WOT ????? let it go guy's ,cos i don't think anyone else knows what ure on about)well me anyway):p
Col - Correct, implies right and wrong. Right?
The concept this guy was talking about was that there is no right or wrong rather a pool of acceptable grammar. To use the example of the saw/seen post, possibly both are acceptable at this moment in time.
I'm no expert on grammar <damn right>, your arguement about the use of 'saw' seems valid enough, but I'd have used 'seen' just like Big G.
There is a right and wrong for any given moment in time. I understand your point about evolving grammar, however, the comment "correct grammar is an invalid statement" is a false statement. (You started it!) :pQuote:
quote:Originally posted by bad dog mini
Col - Correct, implies right and wrong. Right?
The concept this guy was talking about was that there is no right or wrong rather a pool of acceptable grammar. To use the example of the saw/seen post, possibly both are acceptable at this moment in time.
I'm no expert on grammar <damn right>, your arguement about the use of 'saw' seems valid enough, but I'd have used 'seen' just like Big G.
Iain - I just rememeberd I have a change in Spec! It's Julz's fault!
Understand were your coming from, if you want to use the phrase 'correct grammar' perhaps there's more than one 'correct grammar' at any given time?
The point I was making is that a singular 'correct grammar' is an invalid statement.
Iain - He wants a scottish speaking sat nav! :p
Yes, I shall take all the blame!!:p:DQuote:
quote:Originally posted by Big Col
Iain - I just rememeberd I have a change in Spec! It's Julz's fault!
Its the bastardization of language caused by the modern habit of confusing/integrating the vernacular with the written. Depending on your individual point of view it can be seen as good or bad. On the plus side it simplifies language - less goobldygook - and is afterall how language has evolved to its present state. On the negative side some may see it as a lowering of standards and an erosion of language - Americanization of English, rapidly vanishing dialects such as Doric etc. I dont think this is unique to Scots or English though some nationalities are pro-active in protecting their language. I'm sure someone told me recently that there is a movement in France to replace English/American words with an appropriate French version. Can understand the patriotic impulses behind this but also I think its a very small part of the 'battening down the hatches' trend in the global community. One of my professors at uni, an expert in Russian history, predicted war between the US and Europe within 200 years. Hopefully he was being unduly pessimistic. (bloody hell I'm fairly cheery the night)
:D:D:D
I must be thick,cos not only don't i have a clue what you are talking about,but my head hurt's reading it !:p