Showing posts with label inconsistency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inconsistency. Show all posts

Friday, 10 June 2016

You Cannot Be Serious, # 74

This fairly short piece of text is marked by confusion, due to a failure to proofread before posting — or since: the mangle, submitted by Dr Faustus a month ago was still in place as of this morning — and an absence of any of the hyphens required by the rules of grammar and for the sake of clarity, as well as inconsistency in the positioning of the registered trademark symbol:

Link: Vitae, ‘Vitae Three Minute Thesis competition’
by the until the end of June; Three Minute Thesis competition; Vitae hosted

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Singular or Plural? # 18

Presently going the rounds online is this confusion of grammatical number. It started so well…

poverty and low pay were […] It was

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Not Washed or Cooked, # 283

The Old Hand & Diamond Inn’s menu, featured yesterday, does not confine its mangles to Scottish food and drink:

Link: The Old Hand & Diamond Inn, Coedway
rasberry, rosemay for rosemary (twice), course for coarse; stilton for Stilton

Sunday, 2 August 2015

Double-take, # 173

Received from Unitemps by Dr Faustus, and not mangling English so much as mangling in English. It certainly seems confused about how to express times, or at least how to express them consistently:

07:45am – 4:15pm OR 08:30am – 18:00pm

Monday, 27 July 2015

Multimangle, # 22

Two clippings from one page of a small commercial website, spotted by Snazz. The first offers two versions of a word, misspelt both times, and the second contains several minor mangles and a sen­tence that displays more passion than intelligibility:
Link: Atelier Garden Studios, ‘Vista Garden Studios’
 
panneling; pannelling; Whats more, our time honoured precision engineering skills, respect & nurture -these materials, resulting in a garden studio which blends with nature to become indoors and outdoor in one space.-

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Multimangle, # 19

Des Pond of Slough has contributed part of a recent report on Michael Gove’s latest pronouncements, which the new Justice Secretary and the Telegraph reporter have rather mangled between them:

Link: The Telegraph, ‘Stephen Fry corrected my “linguistic errors”, says Michael Gove’

In the first paragraph here, the phrases being discussed — ‘best-placed’ and ‘high quality’ — should be flagged, probably by quotation marks since newspapers tend to eschew italicization, as in fact occurs earlier in the report:


As for the instruction itself, Cambridge Dictionaries Online points out that hyphenation is becoming less common, probably (my hypothesis) because fewer people are being taught how to use hyphens properly or how to check a dictionary to determine their correct usage, and possibly also as an influence from scientific writing. However, anyone who has been faced with a stream of apparently random words, and left by the writer to work out their relations and connections, might well argue, on the basis that punctuation is intended to aid clarity, that hyphens should be used consistently and more often than not. It should not be up to the reader to guess what the writer meant, and while common usage might be a case for some changes in language, changes that compromise clarity of expression are not progressive and/or beneficial, but unhelpful to effective communication.

Paragraph two above substitutes ‘arc’ for ‘ark’. Given the relative position on the keyboard of c and k, it is hard to excuse this as a typographical slip, so it must be a homophonous error, however unlikely. Even if whoever first transcribed Gove’s words failed to recognize the term as a biblical reference, you’d have thought the journalist might have encountered Raiders of the Lost Ark, which, although an ‘oldie’, was the topic of a feature article in The Telegraph as recently as March 2015.

Finally, if Gove really said ‘unfitted’, I think he needs to call his grammar-guru Stephen Fry (see the article’s title) for more help. What he wants here is unfit, which Oxford Dictionaries defines as ‘not of the necessary quality or standard to meet a particular purpose’ and which is used of things; and not unfitted which, unless related to clothing or furniture, refers only to persons being ‘not fitted or suited for a particular task or vocation’.
unfitted for unfit; hyphenation; arc for ark

Sunday, 1 March 2015

Double-take, # 74

This Guardian writer is horrified by implicit gender stereotyping in some primary school homework. It’s a fair concern; but the hideous confusion of pronouns seems a greater problem than the font face. Surely politically-correct grammar only has any claim to validity if it’s consistent?

Link: The Guardian, ‘Young children must be protected from ingrained gender stereotypes’
he … they; they … wife

Monday, 16 December 2013

Double-take, # 34

The map on this year’s ‘Celebrate Christmas in Rugby Town Centre’ leaflet contains this gem (with adjacent bonus apostrophe catastrophe):


A four-word text box in which two words are variant spellings of the key term is careless. Both OED and Merriam-Webster note that the plural form deers exists, but OED calls its usage ‘occasional’, and its most recent example is dated c. 1817. Merriam-Webster makes no comment on the plural of reindeer; OED states: ‘Plural unchanged, (rare) reindeers [sic]’; and Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) British & World English rather tersely offers: ‘(plural same or reindeers)’.

The plural form reindeers is not, therefore, untenable or even inaccurate, but the inconsistency in usage is reprehensible. The more familiar form is used in the leaflet’s third mention of the beasts: