De Bron van de grammatica: EnglishpediaBreng uw nieuwsgierigheid en uw vragen en bereken onze bizarre taal |
Wij allen hebben het ervaren. Het zitten bij een bureau of computerlijst terwijl een leeg stuk van document en het lege scherm terug bij ons staart en ons durft om om het even wat, zelfs zin-enkel iets te schrijven.
Dit is de verlammende ziekte die als [het blok van de markerings] wordt bekend schrijver [/tag].
Wat doe?
0 CommentarenIn één van mijn universitaire klassen de andere nacht, zat ik door sommige studentenpresentaties op [markering] academische dishonesty in onderwijs [/tag]. Één groep deed een well-researched werk op [de inflatie van de markerings] rang [/tag], detaillerend zijn oorzaken en potentiële behandelingen. De andere groep stelde wat op de oppervlakte voor een inleiding op scheen te zijn hoe te te bedriegen en waarom het essentieel om dit in school, op om het even welk niveau is te doen.
Ouch!
Ik geloof ik vóór dat, in het spreken minstens en vaak in het schrijven, het gebruiken heb vermeld wie uitsluitend en vergetend wie bestaat zal werken enkel fijn.
Nochtans, de andere dag luisterde ik aan een radioadvertentie over de online daterende dienst waarin een vrouw extols de kwaliteiten van haar nieuwe boyfriend „wie ik online,“ of woorden aan dat effect ontmoette.
Dit raspte op mijn oren. Waarom?
Als u over [markering] online het vinden van goede informatie [/tag] - en niet alleen ernstig bent wat iemand onderaan uw wil dwingen zal keel-u sommige strategieën voor succes nodig hebben.
Ik behandel deze strategieën?? in mijn nieuwe Engelse geroepen eigenschap van Middelen Het Online Onderzoek van de kwaliteit.?? Controle het uit.
Ik ben altijd die slag-harde [markerings] redacteurs, copyeditors en correctors [/tag] tegengekomen die dat aandrongen besta uit wordt gebruikt in de actieve betekenis, die „betekent te omvatten.“
Hence, one could write, "The program comprises dieting, exercise, and yoga." One could not write this in the passive voice, "The program is comprised of dieting, exercise, and yoga," which is the way I always used the verb.
Now,"blow-hard central" had a point in the sense that I never recognized comprise as a transitive verb that took objects, but I’m not sure they were right about not using "is comprised of."
Now to the rescue comes Common Errors in English, which has a solution–use "is composed of" instead, but that doesn’t quite, to me at least, convey the same meaning as "is comprised of."
Whatever, the blow-hards are always right. Blow-hards rule just about everywhere, don’t they? But they’re not always right!
My title is an example of two words that are often confused.?? Actually, what’s confused in many writers’ minds is how to use and spell complementary.??I’ve even seen professional Web sites where companies are trying to sell their “complementary services” and they use complimentary completely incorrectly.?? Sure, I’ll take their free services anytime.
Here’s an explanation of the difference.
I have my NotWords and MorphedWords categories, and now I’m toying with a Grammar Horror Stories category.
I bring this up because I can’t remember how many college students I’ve taught over the years who live in mortal fear of K-12 English admonitions from well-meaning (I hope) but un-grammar-educated (for sure) teachers.
Examples?
Like Milton in Office Space, who proclaimed “the last straw” when they turned the lights off on him, I am now beyond the last straw with the newer generations’ misuse of the NotWord thru, which is a misspelling of the real word through.
Thru belongs in only one usage, and that’s for fast food joints such as [tag]Drive-Thrus[/tag].
The final straw was reached when a student of mine, who has Mensa-caliber brain functions, turned in a paper with [tag]thru[/tag] used throughout it.
Enough. Let’s banish this NotWord forever. I’m through with thru.
Now here’s a misusage that almost no ear, nor eye, will ever catch.
What’s wrong with this lyric:
“If I was a rich man…”?
If this clause reads and sounds okay to you, then you’re definitely among the majority of English users who don’t know, don’t understand or otherwise just ignore the subjunctive mood.
Briefly, the to be verb takes the subjective form were when used in if constructions expressing a wish or condition. For instance:
“If I were in New York today, I could visit my friend Daniel.”
You’re not in New York, so the if expresses a wish or condition and thus requires the subjunctive mood in the verb, which is plural rather than singular.
If I was just learning English, I’d be confused, but if I were born here, I might still be confused. (Find the error–or irony–in there yet?)
I was dashing off an e-mail just now, and I used the word gleam in the sense of examining some documents and deriving meaning.
Something struck me as odd about the word. It turns out that I really meant glean. It’s a good thing I turned instantly to my cyber-buddy Dictionary.com to verify my spelling and usage, and sure enough: Gleam: a flash or beam of light. Glean: to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit. Of course, these are only the first definitions for each, but as you can see, I had chosen the wrong word entirely.
Lesson here, even for an old writer hack like me: When in doubt, look it up.
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
