The top five grammar myths: How many do you follow?

Habits learnt at school are not necessarily hard and fast grammar rules.

The top five grammar myths

Many teachers use a combination of white lies and habits to keep students’ writing focused, but many are not actually based on rules of the English language.

Here are five of the top grammar myths that people often believe about the language they love.

Starting a sentence with a conjunction
This is the perfect example of taking a lesson from school and sticking to it. My daughter was reading me a book recently and came to a sentence starting with ‘and’. She gasped and told me that you can’t start a sentence with ‘and’. Teachers give this instruction to stop students writing in fragments, but this is not actually a rule of grammar. It’s much better to avoid a long sentence full of connected independent clauses and start a sentence with a conjunction.

Ending a sentence with a preposition
The “pseudo-rule” is entirely based on a 17th century quibble between English poet John Dryden and rival poet Ben Jonson, in which Dryden mistakenly transferred a Latin rule to English. In Latin, prepositions are attached to nouns and cannot be separated from them. There are perfectly acceptable instances in English where it is appropriate to end a sentence with a preposition, for example, ‘what are you looking at?’ or ‘it’s you he is thinking of’.

Splitting infinitives
This is another pseudo-rule that owes much to falsely equating rules for Latin to the English language. The rule suggests that you cannot split the word ‘to’ from its verb. Present style and usage manuals deem simple split infinitives unobjectionable. For example, Curme's Grammar of the English Language (1931) says that not only is the split infinitive correct, but it "should be furthered rather than censured, for it makes for clearer expression". The Oxford Dictionaries do not regard the split infinitive as ungrammatical, but on balance consider it likely to produce a weak style and advise against its use for formal correspondence

‘That’ and ‘which’ are not interchangeable
According to the rule, non-restrictive clauses (those set off by commas, dashes, or parentheses) must be introduced by ‘which’ and restrictive clauses (those that are essential to the sentence) must be introduced by ‘that’. While this is generally a good rule to follow, Harvard linguist Steven Pinker said the rule is simply a recent invention, rather than a hard and fast rule.

Mixing active and passive voices
Many people have been taught to never mix active and passive in the same sentence. This is ridiculous. There are many occasions when it is necessary to mix the two. For example, ‘It is recommended (passive) that the committee vote (active) for the proposal’.

What grammar rules are you a stickler for? (Yes, I ended a sentence with a preposition).

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    flowerpot
    29th May 2018
    10:15am
    Wouldn't 'committee' be treated as singular in the sentence in the article? 'It is recommended that the committee votes for the proposal' would be correct, not 'vote'?
    heyyybob
    29th May 2018
    10:23am
    :)
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:30am
    It depends on whether the emphasis is on the committee in toto or on its members.
    Adrianus
    29th May 2018
    11:17am
    I disagree flowerpot. Does the committee vote for the proposal.. or does the committee votes for the proposal? Each member of the committee certainly votes for the proposal. :)
    Rod63
    29th May 2018
    12:14pm
    I agree flowerpot. Agreement of verb with the subject means it should be "the committee votes". There is only one committee (singular) so it takes the singular verb form.
    Justsane
    29th May 2018
    2:44pm
    This is all about the last sentence: "It is recommended that the committee vote for the proposal".

    This is correct. But here it is NOT a matter of whether 'the committee' should be regarded as singular (so using 'votes') or plural (so using 'vote'). Here, 'vote' is used because it is in the subjunctive mood, not in the indicative mood which is used for a simple statement of fact. Quoting Google, "The subjunctive ....usually expresses something that you wish for, or a hypothetical rather than actual situation: If only I WERE ten years younger." In the sentence in YLC, what makes it the subjunctive mood is the "It is recommended that".

    Adrianus, to take your example: "Does the committee vote for the proposal.. or does the committee votes for the proposal?" Here, this is the ordinary or indicative mood. But the two alternatives should be: "Does the committee vote for the proposal.. or do the committee vote for the proposal?" It is the 'does' or 'do' which need to be either singular or plural; 'vote', here, is used as an infinitive verb (one which can be preceded by 'to', as in 'to vote', 'to be', etc). Infinitive verbs are always used last in a compound tense.
    Justsane
    29th May 2018
    3:42pm
    Yes infinitive verbs are used last in a compound tense, e.g. 'I can BE', 'she wants TO BE', etc. but depending on the context, the present or past participle could be used, as in 'I am BEING' or 'she has BEEN'. Thought I would clear that up. Saying 'always' in the last sentence of my previous post may be a bit too prescriptive. But the point is, you could not say 'she wants IS'' or 'does the committee VOTES'.

    29th May 2018
    10:18am
    I think everyone should be taught these rules, then taught when and how it's okay to break them. I recently read a book in which every second sentence began with 'and' or 'but'. That's the problem with telling people it's okay to start with a conjunction. Sure it is - sometimes! But only when there's a good reason to. Same with all those other rules. They may not be hard and fast rules, but they are good general guides that, if observed most of the time, make for better writing.
    heyyybob
    29th May 2018
    10:24am
    ;)
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    10:32am
    It's not only grammar that needs to be taught as you say, but punctuation as well - particularly apostrophes.
    Adrianus
    29th May 2018
    11:23am
    I disagree Rainey, we should be more focussed on developing a single global language, rather than debating ye old English.
    Rosret
    29th May 2018
    11:52am
    Knows-a-lot punctuation gets me every time.
    It's Chris' friend's birthday. Is that correct? I have no idea.
    It's Mother's Day or It's Mothers Day or It's Mothers' Day?
    Rosret
    29th May 2018
    11:55am
    Adrianus - imagine a phonically correct English language. I really don't know why the language hasn't evolved either. Too many purists?
    Anonymous
    29th May 2018
    3:24pm
    Adrianus, it hasn't happened yet, and in the meantime people need to learn to communicate effectively, both in speech and in writing.
    Justsane
    29th May 2018
    3:50pm
    Rosret: "It's Chris' friend's birthday" is correct. If the name ends in 's' there is no need to put another 's' after the apostrophe. And it's "Mothers' Day", because the day belongs to mothers, collectively, not to just one mother.
    Adrianus
    30th May 2018
    8:04am
    Actually, we do have a global language. Emoticons.
    Adrianus
    30th May 2018
    8:09am
    Rosret, when I try to understand the above posts I cannot seem to get past the participles, it makes me tense in the compound sense.
    Big Yin
    3rd Jun 2018
    5:00pm
    Adrianus, I was interested to read the post you placed (8.09am 30 May 2018) about your being unable to “get past the participles and the fact that they make you tense in the compound sense”. Could you please expand on that for me? I don’t quite understand the full meaning of your comment but would like to see whether I can help clarify things for you.
    Big Yin
    3rd Jun 2018
    5:00pm
    Adrianus, I was interested to read the post you placed (8.09am 30 May 2018) about your being unable to “get past the participles and the fact that they make you tense in the compound sense”. Could you please expand on that for me? I don’t quite understand the full meaning of your comment but would like to see whether I can help clarify things for you.
    Sampancho
    29th May 2018
    12:14pm
    About ending a sentence with a preposition. Wasn't it Churchill who said " that is something up with which I cannot put."
    Polly Esther
    29th May 2018
    12:33pm
    :-))
    Big Yin
    3rd Jun 2018
    4:47pm
    Adrianus: You are right in what you say (30May2018) regarding the apostrophe and its denoting relationship insofar as 'relationship’ means connection or possessiveness. I’ve indicated elsewhere (to Rosret 31May 2018) that, where a word ends with an ‘s’, it is quite correct to say, for example, “Chris’ friend’s birthday” but that it is also correct to say “Chris’s friend’s birthday”. An afterthought, however, is that if Chris’/Chris’s friend becomes plural, that would become “Chris’ friends’ birthdays all occurred within a couple of days of each other”. To add a little more support to the apostrophe after a word which ends with ‘s”, and maybe making things clearer, we can say equally correctly EITHER “David Jones’ window-displays are always colourful and creative but particularly during the Christmas season” OR “David Jones’s (NOTE the additional ‘s’) window-displays are always colourful and creative but particularly during the Christmas season”.
    There is one thing, however, that doesn’t seem to have been touched upon and that is the apostrophe in the context of denoting that a letter (or letters) is/are missing or dropped. Examples are: “Aren’t you feeling well?”; “Isn’t that right?’; “I’m not sure”; We shan’t be going”; “Tomorrow, everything’ll be better”; “Eating this’ll get rid of your hunger”. A little irregularity comes into play with the usage of “Won’t you be happy with that?” and the question arises “Why the ‘o’?” I believe that it’s simply because it it was found easier to say “Won’t” than “Willn’t” and, so, that way of spelling the word (and writing it) became part of the lexicon. Similarly, “Shalln’t we?” became “Shan’t we?”.
    Not directly related, but a thought that bears consideration is the manner in which many make plurals from abbreviations. A common one is “Telephone No.” which, MISTAKENLY, becomes “Telephone No’s.’ in the plural. The plural, in this case is “Telephone Nos.”. Similarly, the plural of “Dr.” Is “Drs.”
    Finally, Adrianus, I think I know what you are getting at when you suggest that a comma is used for emphasis. However, I don’t think that it is a precise enough thought. There are several uses for the comma and I would think that separating words, ideas or contexts in a sentence would be among the main ones – even as a substitute for ’and’ and this could be the reason that you feel it suggests a pause.
    Keep up your interest in the language. Whether you see it currently or not, it is a beautiful, profound language – one which IS dynamic in that it changes constantly and which retains its beauty regardless of the literature from whichever age (or author) that one happens to read.
    Big Yin
    29th May 2018
    12:58pm
    Starting a sentence with a conjunction: I clearly remember that stage of my primary schooling (in Scotland some 70 years ago) when we were being taught English grammar. The class was told that it was not the ‘done thing’ to begin a sentence with ‘and’ and that we should avoid doing so. And that advice - coming from the teacher whose authority was to be looked up to by 10 and 11 year-olds - we took as being the general rule – although per se, it wasn’t a rule. (Notice how I began the last sentence with ‘And’.)
    However, I also recall learning that adhering to this admonition would benefit or exercise our brains in that we could consider an alternative word or phrase to use as a substitute for ‘and’. Examples might be: ‘In addition’, ‘Additionally’, ‘Moreover’, ‘Having said that’, ‘Finally’, ‘All things considered’, etc. We were told to consider the person reading and the possible difficulty in comprehension or confusion that could be encountered by long, disconnected and circumlocutory sentences: and, therefore, it was always better to keep things simple, brief and to use ‘And’ or whatever else was deemed appropriate with which to begin the sentence. As well as this technique, there was always the colon after which the ongoing sentence could certainly be continued by using ‘and’ (no capital letter) and the ‘rule’ was not broken.
    Another thing we were encouraged to avoid was an inordinate repetition of the same word. By employing synonyms, the message could be made more interesting and less irritating to the reader: and, to the writer again, the benefit of exercise of the mind.
    On the subject of English, another (grammatical) instruction I recollect was the teacher’s writing in chalk on her blackboard (as it was called then) the word ‘and’ seven times and telling the class to make up a sentence using the seven ‘and’s exactly as they had been written on the board. Quite a poser! No pupil got it right. But I still, after all those decades, well remember the lesson and the answer, viz., “There is no comma between ‘and’ and ‘and’ and ‘and’ and ‘and’.” I have given up counting today how many people misuse the comma, insert it quite wrongly and the above mnemonic is a good way of reminding myself of what is correct.
    Adrianus
    30th May 2018
    8:28am
    I've always thought an apostrophe is used to denote relationship. As distinct from a comma which is used for emphasis. I think the comma is misunderstood by many and used incorrectly as a pause in a sentence.
    Jennie
    29th May 2018
    1:12pm
    Not really a grammatical issue. BUT (hmmm) if I hear "haitch" said, I want to scream. There is no such word as "haitch." It is "aitch." This is the name of the letter H.

    Yes we could mention the grocers' apostrophes: "Avocado's." What do those avocados own I wonder.
    Arisaid
    29th May 2018
    5:24pm
    Those who say "haitch" have generally been taught by Nuns.
    Jennie
    29th May 2018
    6:19pm
    Why? Are the nuns ignorant or what?
    There are many people who have not been taught by nuns who say "haitch."
    Rosret
    29th May 2018
    9:39pm
    - and it was pronounced "otel" not hotel and "ospital" not hospital early last century. The language is changing.
    Jennie
    30th May 2018
    8:39am
    The missing H was probably a remnant of French pronunciation..
    There is no word "haithch" in the dictionary these days so it's wrong.
    Jennie
    30th May 2018
    9:40am
    Sorry about the spelling error re you-know-what! Made in irritation! Yes delete that word for ever.
    Big Yin
    31st May 2018
    1:48am
    Personally, I pronounce ‘h’ as ‘aitch’. I am aware of the ascribing of the ‘haitch’ pronunciation to Catholic schools in this country. I have a feeling that this latter pronunciation may be the way in which people from Ireland – or, at least, certain parts of the country – said it: or were HEARD to say it. In the earlier days of Catholic schooling in this country, when many nuns and brothers came here from Ireland to be largely instrumental in establishing the Catholic school-system, some of them no doubt used their ‘haitch’ style and this probably then proliferated among the citizenry at large. Whatever! To me, ‘aitch’ is correct. Finally, it has nothing to do with French pronunciation on which I commented separately. The French pronounce the letter phonetically as ‘ash’.

    With regard to the use of apostrophes in plurals (and elsewhere), it’s sort of out-of-control and it is irritating. So few people seem to understand it. MOST of the time, one just adds an ‘s’ to get a plural such as toy/toys; house/houses; car/cars; desk/desks; book/books; etc. But, of course, English being English, there are exceptions. Indeed, many of them! Mouse/mice; datum/data; phenomenon/phenomena; foot/feet; wall/walls; sheep/sheep; catch/catches; pouch/pouches; couch/couches; tooth/teeth; cannon/cannon; and so on. In none of these is there an apostrophe. In response to Jenny’s comment, we may very well say, “Of course, the plural of avocado is avocados.” But, having said that and, mindful that the adding of an ‘s’ to give the plural is not such a hard and fast rule, we can find difficulty in understanding why the plural of tomato is tomatoes: and of potato, potatoes. All considered, there is certainly no reason for inserting an apostrophe to make a word a plural. Finally, Jenny, if you were to make a sentence with the avocado’s word you gave and where you ask “what do the avocado’s own?”, it would be quite in order to say, for example, “The avocado’s skin was turning from green to black”
    sandyfaye
    29th May 2018
    1:38pm
    There, they're and their - spelling rather than grammar.
    David
    29th May 2018
    11:56pm
    And two many people fail too understand the use of the words to, two and too
    Big Yin
    30th May 2018
    2:59am
    The situation was there for a long, long time in our English language when, after the Norman Invasion of 1066, a great number of French words were introduced and used.
    In many of the (French) words beginning with the letter ‘h’, that letter was ‘aspirate’ or not pronounced by the French. (Note I said ‘many’ but not all! The French do have many words beginning with the letter ‘h’ which IS actually pronounced - although not particularly strongly.)
    Just a few examples additional to the ‘hotel’ and ‘hospital’ given by Rosret above, are: history (and historical), harangue, honour, hero, hostel (out of which ‘hotel’ is derived): and, if the indefinite article ‘an’ is to be employed immediately prior to these words, this ‘an’ is said and then followed by the particular word with its first letter (h) aspirate or silent. For example, it was the done thing to say “He was reading an ’istorical novel at the time.” Or “He checked into an ’otel near the town centre.” The situation has changed today whereby we tend to pronounce the ‘h’ and precede these words with the ‘a’ form of the indefinite article. EXAMPLE: He sought a hotel which had all the modern facilities. Of words where the ‘h’ has been traditionally silent, the only one I can think of at the moment which remains unchanged today is ‘honour’. EXAMPLE: She did an ’honourable thing thus bringing great credit to her community.
    Eddy
    29th May 2018
    1:46pm
    On of the few rules I remember from my primary school English was 'never use a preposition to end a sentence with'. Now you have pulled my grammatical rug from under me.
    ps. I know the rule broke itself: a deliberate, and successful, ploy by my teacher all those years ago.
    pps. Did I use the colon correctly?
    Eddy
    29th May 2018
    2:00pm
    Another thing I get a lot of amusement with is 'dangling participles'. Journalists in particular seem to have a real problem with them as do advertising copy writers.
    Big Yin
    29th May 2018
    2:41pm
    Flowerpot, Heyyybob, Knows-a-Lot, Adrianus, Rod63, Re. your collective comments on the inter-use of Active and Passive Moods of verbs – and, especially, about the example used, i.e. “It is recommended (passive) that the committee VOTE (active) for the proposal’. (NOTE my having emended the originally used single-apostrophes to double apostrophes. With good reason too!)
    Anyhow, on whether the Committee ‘vote’ or ‘votes’, my opinion is that ‘vote’ is correct. My reason is that the verb in this second part of the sentence is not ‘passive’ – nor ‘active’ for that matter. Rather, it is ‘subjunctive’, an area that would take too much time at the moment to explain.
    Correctly, then - regardless of the noun being singular or plural - the sentence should read: “It is recommended (passive) that the committee vote (‘subjunctive’ not ‘active’) for the proposal”. See my usage of the double and the single apostrophes. It’s the Americans I think
    We should remember too that words like “Committee” are ‘collective’ nouns and, like other collective nouns, such as herd, group, etc are regarded as singular when it comes to verbs. So, for example, it is correct to say “The Committee DECIDES (not decide) on that tomorrow.”
    With regard to the double-apostrophes, I tend to suspect that this evolution into our way of using the English language has come from our friends in the USA.
    Big Yin
    29th May 2018
    3:32pm
    Adrianus – In the past, there HAVE been attempts to establish a universal language – most notably and recently, Esperanto. For various reasons, the result has been failure. Formerly also we have had Latin and French as the sort of lingua franca of (mainly) the educated classes - academia, the nobility and royal courts, big businesses and organisations, Diplomatic Corps, and so on - but these, with the exception of those wanting to preserve tradition - have largely petered out.
    More and more people are speaking English than ever before i.e. native English-speakers and those whose mother tongue is other than English. It’s amazing that, despite the complexities, irregularities and difficulties of English that this is so. Interesting too that there are some 400 million more people whose native tongue is Spanish than those whose mother-tongue is English. English, with a ‘mother-tongue’ base of 375 million has a secondary group of 1.5 billion who use it as a second language.
    However, let’s not kid ourselves that other languages do not have these anomalies. They do! One interesting fact is that China with its burgeoning population is causing Chinese to be the most numerically-spoken mother tongue in the world but, still, problems exist there which would require too long an explanation here. YET! So many Chinese these days are learning English.
    I think the answer still lies in the fact that so many people throughout the world are actually regarding English as the most important to have in their lexica/lexocons for whatever reasons – economic, political, trade, diplomatic, education, aviation, shipping, missionary, etc.
    As a multi-linguist and, therefore, one who is aware of the variants in different languages, I can objectively say that English would be my language of choice were I other than a first-language English speaker. As for changing the situation as it exists now, liken the it to the huge oil-tanker at sea which, even when it wants to change direction, encounters great difficulty and takes a long time to implement.
    Big Yin
    29th May 2018
    3:49pm
    Rosret – “Chris’ friend’s birthday” is correct. So also is “Chris’s friend’s birthday”.
    Your question re. “Mothers Day”: Just bear in mind that it is a special for ALL mothers (i.e. plural). Hence, the correct way for it to be shown on letters, greetings cards, etc., is “Mothers’ Day”. It is likewise with Fathers’ Day. In other words, these are not special days for your own mother or father. They are for everyone’s mother and father. In this case, there is a need for an apostrophe and, because of the plurality, the apostrophe goes after the entire word. Just remember though that exceptions exist where words end with the letter ‘S’ - as in Chris above.
    Charlie
    29th May 2018
    4:10pm
    I have forgotten all my rules of grammar and write mainly from habit.

    Some of the speech habits that get mixed up with the written habits. I find I have to separate the two as there is so much slang in our speech, where the meaning depends on the sound of the word.
    A person who spoke much the same as he wrote things was John Laws former radio announcer.

    The Americans mess with our spelling a lot but even without that distraction, when computers arrived I found that there were English words I had spelled wrong all my life
    Elizzy
    30th May 2018
    12:17am
    Why do Australians have an aversion to using the present participle as an adjective? They say 'change room' instead of changing room, swim pool, etc. Another usage that really shocked me when I first came across it was using the adjectives 'male' and 'female' in place of the nouns 'men' and 'women'.
    Big Yin
    30th May 2018
    1:48am
    Agree with you wholeheartedly, Elizzy. Other crazy 'coined verbology' in this category exists like wash-room, dance academy, cycle track, dive instructor. There are times when I think that there are among us those who think it 'hip' or 'cool' to use (to them) such trendy and innovative words or expressions. It's a way in which they can have their names immortalised on the "I helped to achieve that" Roll of Honour. Big deal! Take heart though! For, in spite of the trend, there are still many words using the present participle in the manner you like: Sewing machine, baking soda, cooking salt, cleaning agent, writing pad, jumping castle, etc. Men (or Gents) and Women (or Ladies) is something that did not need to be changed. There was nothing wrong with that situation. Again, it has come about through the trend-setters pursuing their need for a verbal or grammatical 'hit'.
    MD
    30th May 2018
    8:41am
    Some gutter talk to lend a small degree of perspective:
    As an impressionable young apprentice in a predominately all male workplace, a daily necessity for spending pennies in the ablution block signed - 'MEN', brief moments of intense concentration resulted therein... in which time one could absorb the latest graffiti addition(s) to the cubicle door/partition. I beg forebearance by offering one such example.

    "In memory of these dunny poets and all their verse and wit, there will be erected up to the sky a monument - a heap of shit."
    Not the stuff of legend, the authors certainly not stuffy legends, although the cloying air was legendary. Poetic license perhaps ? Now whatsa matter for you, hey !
    Big Yin
    31st May 2018
    12:32am
    Don’t want to be picky, MD - merely (and I hope you’ll see it this way) educational because I believe you to be genuinely interested in knowing your language better and I wish you Good Luck.
    The word you should have used is ‘forbearance’ (no ‘e’ after ‘for’). The word ‘forebears’ relates to one’s family’s ancestors. However, 'forebearance' does not exist as a word - either with that 'e' or without it.
    A 2nd point: There's no such word as ‘predominately’. The word you ought to have used is ‘predominantly’.
    There is a 3rd point also which is on your having used the compound noun ‘poetic license’. Sorry again but the correct spelling here is ‘licence’. As a general rule – and something to bear in mind - where you have words like the one you have used, i.e. license, if you place an ‘s’ at the end, it makes the word a verb. If the word has a ‘c’ at the end, it makes the word a noun. CONSIDER: The team went out for some shooting practice (noun) AGAINST The team decided to practise (verb) their shooting. The same applies to what you used in your ‘poetic license’ context. CONSIDER ALSO: The traffic-cop asked the young lady driver for her licence (noun) AND COMPARE IT WITH: The young lady passed her test and is now licensed (verb) to drive. While, of course, there are many other examples, these should be enough to illustrate my point. It has been my observation through the years that American usage generally employs the ‘s’ regardless. That, however, doesn’t make it right for us nor give us cause to relinquish correctness.
    Hoohoo
    31st May 2018
    4:12pm
    Wow Big Yin, you really know your stuff.
    Your knowledge is a pleasure to behold, with so many so-called "writers" in the media muddying the waters, I sometimes question myself "Have I got it wrong, after all these years?".
    Big Yin
    1st Jun 2018
    1:58am
    Thank you, Hoohoo. Nice to read what you had to say. I don’t just obsessively focus on shall we say ‘The Queen’s English” and on retaining it with its correct grammar, syntax, pronunciation and so on. I do acknowledge that there is a colloquial side to it as well. It’s when the context calls for proper English that I do what I can to ensure that it is done correctly.

    There are many people in the media who report to us daily about what’s happening in the world, in business, in politics, in what products to buy and which not to buy. Because of their education for and their training, experience and ongoing interest and education in the jobs they do, I want to look to these people as ones who are the exponents of proper English and, thereby, who can further the cause of good English among the people. Regrettably, this is not the case and those very people to whom we should be looking for guidance are not up to the task.

    Despite the years that they have been doing their trade and the experience they must have obviously acquired, so many of them don’t even seem to have the remotest instinct as to how a word, a person’s name, the name of a city (in Australia or outside of it) or whatever should be correctly pronounced: nor do they have the instinct nor the inclination to check. Consequently, the language suffers.

    Here’s an instance of a couple of small things which puzzle me. I do not know the reason behind this but there are certain words traditionally used for certain situations but this no longer seems to be the case.

    You never hear these days about a “person being “discharged” from hospital. Today, they are released. You get released from PRISON or the like but do not get released from hospital. A soldier in a war situation (or, sadly, in some schools in the USA) might be wounded in a shooting but our word-heroes these days tell us they were injured. ‘Wounded’ is a forgotten word. The so-called professionals – or those who write the scripts for them – seem to have no clue about the nuances or implications of words like these. All of these mistakes, wrong assumptions, lack of understanding or knowledge of our language together with all the modern-day hype used to make something sound innovative or exciting contribute to, as you say, a muddying of the waters.

    17th Aug 2018
    9:47am
    I hate people being refered to as 'that did it'where I went to scool it was 'people who did it'. that was use for objects.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles