BE CORRECT!!! SEE THIS!!!

20 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2009-02-27 12:26

Since this is a writing site and most people are here to try and improve their writing through feedback, I thought I would help out with just a few little points:

Plurals of ‘y’ ending words –

If there is a consonant before the ‘y’, they change to ‘ies’
If there is a vowel before the ‘y’, they simply gain an ‘s’

There are never apostrophes in plurals. NEVER.

They’re = They are
Their = possessive, e.g. their poems
There = denotes place, e.g. over there, there are

Your = the possessive, e.g. your poem
You’re = You are

It’s = it is
It’s is never used with an apostrophe as a possessive
e.g. The horse ate its carrots (correct)

Enough for now.

J x

Fri, 2009-02-27 14:30

a.jay

if you can explain a semi colon can I call you mother?

Fri, 2009-02-27 15:09

jennifer

Funnily enough, I was teaching my Year 9s colons and semi-colons today - here is exactly what I showed them: 1) Use colons (:) to introduce lists: In the park, there are many types of flowers: tulips, daisies, buttercups, crocuses and snowdrops. (Use commas to separate single word lists). 2) Use semi-colons (;) to separate lists of phrases (more than one word): In the restaurant, many types of dishes are on offer: lamb chops with mint sauce; fried steak with a garlic garnish; vegetable lasagne with salad and sautéed turnip casserole. 3) Semi-colons are also used where a comma is not strong enough but you don’t want to use a full stop – they separate two complete clauses that you want to connect together: I had resolved to leave the past behind me; I had hoped that the pain would remain there also. (we didn't get on to the more complex stuff)! But I'm probably far too young to be your mother... ;P J x

Fri, 2009-02-27 17:27

a.jay

ouch!!! ok, God it is then!

Fri, 2009-02-27 18:32

chuck

That's very unique.

Fri, 2009-02-27 19:14

bobblehat2023

When I was in primary school I always wrote the word 'had' as 'hat'. None of the teachers pointed out I was doing anything wrong for ages. Although I did have very bad handwriting so they may not actually have been able to see that I writing it wrong.

Fri, 2009-02-27 22:15

blaster219

The English language spent centuries evolving into its current form; and its still evolving every day thanks to new technologies, words, regional differences and so on. And speaking of regional differences, people go on and on about the differences between US and UK English. I live in a city separated from another city by a river just 30ft wide. We have different accents and even different slang expression. 80 odd miles away is another city with a completely different lexicon. 200 odd miles away is a city whose inhabitants, for some reason, do not believe they have regional accent and therefore are the only ones qualified to judge what is and what isn't English. I've got news for you London, you have a regional accent, its called London or South East England. I see no reason why our language has to suddenly stop evolving. In fact, with the increasing pace of modern life and the speed in which new ideas and concepts can now spread, its evolution should be speeding up rather than slowing down. Language is all about communicating ideas and concepts. In many ways, understanding is paramount, not a strict adherence to style manuals written (in some cases) over a century ago. That said, it's no excuse to not teach the fundamentals of its structure and syntax. Just don't expect words to have the same meaning this year that they had last year, never mind changing meanings with each generation. But I think we can all draw the line at txt, l33t and IM being valid languages for school work.

Fri, 2009-02-27 22:40

jennifer

But in order to communicate those ideas and concepts, surely we need a form of communication, such as a 'correct' language...otherwise any genius we wish to impart to each other would be misread, or misunderstood. Sorry, I'm not very PC. I believe in teaching children skills they will actually find useful in their futures... And I think you'd be interested to note that scholars classify 'modern English' as Shakespeare onwards...about the time when things were generally being written down and formally published...bibles, dictionaries, etc...the English language has been relatively unchanged since around 1600, compared to its rapid evolution up to that point.... J x

Fri, 2009-02-27 23:08

(Reply to #8) #9

blaster219

If "Shakespeare" is considered "modern" then God help us. I remember being being bored to tears trying decode that archaic text. I've got more chance trying to program a VCR using the Japanese instructions than trying to get through Shakespeare. Lord knows why they still insist on teaching that crap in schools. Yes he was a major influence in English literature, but that was 400 years ago (at least). For godsakes, teach us something from the last century at least, something that might actually get us interested in reading for the sake of enjoyment, not just for getting past exams and parroting the accepted views. If you can't tell, I really hated doing Shakespeare. Lord of the Flies I could handled, but JC and Romeo and Juliet were just too much. I'm not entirely sure what we were supposed to be learning accept and if you don't know what you're learning, then how can it possible be teaching you anything?

Fri, 2009-02-27 22:52

#10

jennifer

Yes, if you can say 'me' and it still makes sense without the other person, then it's correct - 'Pushed I away' doesn't work! well spotted! Darn the BBC for supporting illiteracy! J x

Fri, 2009-02-27 23:51

#11

jennifer

Hang on, I'll work out your argument in a minute, once I've decoded your grammar, phrasing and spelling... *bites tongue* Shakespeare was a master at manipulating language - but like marmite, you either love it or you hate it. I try to encourage my children to read whatever interests them, and make Shakespeare as fun as I can. Some books are a hit, like 'Holes', but I agree, a lot of 'set texts' are dry and hard to access... unfortunately, we teachers just follow the national curriculum and attempt to educate as best we can- oh, to have free rein! A girl can dream.... J x

Sat, 2009-02-28 11:16

(Reply to #11) #12

blaster219

I'm not blaming the teachers for the set texts, I know they have no control over what they teach. And I'm not asking for trendy books like Harry Potter to be taught in schools, just books that are written in the actual language that people now speak. Is that too much to ask?

Sat, 2009-02-28 11:38

#13

Ewan

'just books that are written in the actual language that people now speak' I think you should be careful with that one; nothing dates literature more than the speech patterns, argot or slang of its time, Shakespeare is just one example. In twenty years, is two pages of 'yeah, but no, but yeah, but...' going to be comprehensible to anyone at all? On the other hand, 'Innit', I think will be around for a long, long time, perhaps. Who really knows? Not I. The thing about grammar, syntax and correct usage of worms - sorry words - is that, unless you really are some kind of idiot savant, you need to know the rules to break them: effectively. For comic affect; or otherwise. Don't have a fit Jen, they were deliberate - for comic effect, or otherwise.

Author Page at the 'Zon

Sat, 2009-02-28 15:14

#14

bobblehat2023

I don't think there's a direct opposition between the evolution of language and giving children the linguistic tools to write correctly. Nouns becoming verbs is not necessarily a problem; kids not knowing the difference between a noun and verb is a problem.

Sun, 2009-03-01 00:21

#15

jennifer

I think everybody understood what I meant - the people I was trying to help (and teach everyday) struggle with the basics, NO_1 is getting a little too sophisticated for the lesson... *fitting interrupted by disclaimer* Bristolian is interesting, it makes great use of double negatives, which the kids find impossible to fathom... 'I din't done nuthin', Miss.' I think books use single speech marks to save on ink.... J x

Sun, 2009-03-01 07:51

#16

Ewan

'To save on ink', I bet that's true. The OU is teaching that single speech marks should be used for speech and the double for an internal quote within that speech (or quotation come to that). No, that's not what I learned at school either.

Author Page at the 'Zon

Sun, 2009-03-01 11:56

#17

jennifer

The literary establishment has to keep re-writing the rulebook to justify their existence, perhaps? And to keep typesetters in business...ah....sorry, computer programmers... J x

Mon, 2009-03-02 13:55

#18

Ewan

Snooker = almost always ex-players. Snooker hall, not school, after 13. Football = mostly ex-sports reporters on local radio.Still painting pictures with the (wrong)words. Rugby = mostly ex-players from the public/independent school sector. You will hear a difference when the current crop of internationals become ex-internationals. It's sport. Try writing well about it, you'll see why everyone struggles to talk about it.

Author Page at the 'Zon

Tue, 2009-03-03 13:01

#19

littleditty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1-25s4uwFQ&feature=related

Tue, 2009-03-03 13:13

#20

Crackersville

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P46o5ysyS1Q

Topic locked