Loosing vs. Losing

My main pet hate being how times tables are taught. Can you tell me why times tables are taught as - 8x1, 8x2, 8x3 instead of 1x8, 2x8, 3x8. I believe 1x8, 2x8, 3x8 is the correct way to teach the 8 times table as you are teaching about different amounts of 8's (the focus is on the 8). Whereas the other way is teaching 8 lots of 1's and 8 lots of 2's etc. The focus is on a different number each time!
My sons' teacher agrees with you. I told her that we were practising times tables at home, and she reinforced to me the importance of doing it 1 x 8, 2 x 8, 3 x 8, etc, just like you say. :)
 
So, for those of us who are picky about poor spelling and grammar - why does it bother us?

It doesn't usually bother us if someone doesn't know where a particular mountain range is or the name of major river of a country, (geography), or what king reigned where and when in a certain place in time (history), or the difference between a Monet and a Matisse (art) and so on.

Do we have a touch of 'class' or snobbishness in our makeup? Do we see someone who can't spell or use grammar correctly as less educated? Or lazy?
Are we purists who don't like to see the English language being misused and changed over time because of poor habits and acceptance of such?
Are we competitive and like the challenge of mastering something that we know is hard and think everyone else should have the same attitude?

My answer: I dunno - it just does! :p
 
Do we have a touch of 'class' or snobbishness in our makeup?
Just slightly, although I grew up in a very poor family.
Do we see someone who can't spell or use grammar correctly as less educated?
Definitely. I usually associate 'haitch' with bogans.
Or lazy?
Yes.
Are we purists who don't like to see the English language being misused and changed over time because of poor habits and acceptance of such?
Just slightly.
Are we competitive and like the challenge of mastering something that we know is hard and think everyone else should have the same attitude?
Not at all. I don't 'know' that it's hard. In fact it's hard to think of it as hard as it seems to have always come naturally to me.

.................
 
If we want to write something and have it read by other people, then why should we make it hard for those people to comprehend, enjoy and learn from? Surely that's the point of grammar and spelling. It makes the language clear for others. It's a courtesy, too.
(but maybe I'm just a curmudgeon who edits for a living.:cool:)
 
I'm with Orwell. The corruption and misuse of language is a type of 'doublethink newspeak' which obscures truth and makes the unpalatable palatable.

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

If you don't know what your words are saying, then how do you know what you're really saying, and if you don't know how words are wrongly used, how do you know what the true intent of the speaker is?

For example, note how 'pollution' (responsibility of polluter) became 'environmental degradation' (responsibility of ?) which became 'global warming' which became which became 'emissions build-up' (responsibility of everyone) which became something you can trade (responsibility of governments).

Faulty language, faulty thinking and obfuscation of truth.

Hence my interest in this topic which I hopefully keep this side of pedantry.
 
I've noticed the word 'quite' is used for both quite and quiet by some people and I don't think it's a typo.

I think a lot comes back to enunciation and pronunciation. If that's not used and corrected as we learn to speak then come primary school time and phonetics, kids are trying to spell a word like it sounds as they say it which quite often is wrong.

I have to agree.
As a teacher I hear kids mispronouncing things a lot. I provide the correct model (rather than correcting) which is more positive.
eg child says "I goed to the shop" I say "Oh you WENT to the shop". etc

Parents don't seem to do thins, hence the incorrect model is reinforced.
I work in a good area but children often use "me and mum"

Olly I used to teach 1x8 2x8 (I haven't taught those grades for years) but I assume that's the way it's still taught. Maybe the teacher doesn't realise. I have seen some teachers do weird things. If no-one tells them they don't know. I often have student teachers and some of them a scary.
I was teaching my Year 1's about books and explained that they could go into any library and find the books they want because they have the same number system. eg all books on space will have the same number on the spine. The student said "really, I didn't know that". :eek: This is a UNI student. Scary.
 
eg child says "I goed to the shop" I say "Oh you WENT to the shop". etc
I despair of ever fixing "I writ a note to you!" (she writes me a note on the computer then runs out to tell me she's written me a note). WROTE dammit! WROTE!

I love her pronounciation of perdament. As in, perdament texta - the sort that doesn't come off. And then there's the flossifer's stone - one of the Harry Potter books :)
 
Apparently Tiger is a bit of an exhibitionist...

Cori Rist talks to Natalie Morales about her alleged affair with Tiger Woods on NBC's Today show.

Most people have affairs in secret, not on NBC's Today show.

It's also not clear from the headline which one of the two women mentioned is the one who had the affair, and which one is the interviewer. Strangely enough it wasn't mentioned in the article either.
 
My pet hate is people who incorrectly use "advice" instead of "advise" :mad:
There are quite a few more, although most have been covered already!

Boods
 
My pet hate is people who incorrectly use "advice" instead of "advise" :mad:
There are quite a few more, although most have been covered already!

Boods

I have always been troubled by effect/affect. If someone could explain the correct use of these two words it would be greatly appreciated!:)
 
I have always been troubled by effect/affect. If someone could explain the correct use of these two words it would be greatly appreciated!:)
Effect is the rEsult... eg the effect of rising interest rates

Affect is an Action... eg his behaviour affected her
 
What about "Westpac effected a rate rise of 0.45%". Is that correct?
No, it's a hideous manipulation of the language!
Nah, it's OK. Westpac are taking an action, admittedly, but the action is causing an effect, so effected is correct in this instance. Westpac affected their customers, but effected an interest rate rise. ;)

There are a few good articles on this one, eg http://www.diffen.com/difference/Affected_vs_Effected and http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx (though I think her way of remembering which way around they go is way more complicated than mine!!!!)
 
'That is the type of language up with which I will not put'.
And another:

What did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of up for?

This was supposedly in response to the "rule" that sentences shouldn't end with a preposition - here there are five in a row.

GP
 
Nah, it's OK. Westpac are taking an action, admittedly, but the action is causing an effect, so effected is correct in this instance. Westpac affected their customers, but effected an interest rate rise. ;)

Might be OK, but it's bleeding ugly and hard to understand - hence the confusion between effect/affect. Why not just say ''Westpac put up rates 0.45%''? Shorter, clearer and so much better:cool:.
 
And another:

What did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of up for?
Argh that is the kind of talk my daughter does all the time! We call it politician speak. Generally these kind of sentences have as many superfluous words and double/triple/quadruple negatives as possible.

A lot of the time I have to stop, repeat what she says in my head a few times while trying to parse it, and sometimes the parsing fails and you just have to ask "what on earth did you just SAY?!?!?!?!" :eek:
 
Lol, thinking of this thread last night i was at work talking to one of the newbies helping train her up.

She was talking about how she was in trouble because she "didn't do nothing wrong", i said, "you didn't do what wrong..?", "nothing" i said, "anything".

She then laughed and said i sounded like her mother correcting her when she'd say, me and name, rather than, name and i.
 
Back
Top