Grammar

life must be very wearing for you.
best to stay in and snuggle down with ernest gowers.

Im disgusted with our local facebook group.Nearly every post talks about 'I seen' or 'I had went'. These people speak like this .?

If you read my local Nextdoor online one would be hard pushed to know if eg the person was a cleaner or wanted one the grammar was so dreadful.

I am not a fan of "I could of gone there".

Could of, or should of really irritates me

I know several people who “ speak like this “ none are “cleaners “
Language evolves , it is not static

I have posted this before, but it bears repeating - at my GP, there is a screen, where patients can sign in electronically rather than going to the receptionist.

The screen says “Arrive me” ...

I’ve still never seen anything to beat a couple of
printed (!) signs in a huge Asda some years ago - both on the same day.

‘New Zeeland chedder’, and ‘rasers are now in the shampoo aisle’ (amazing that it wasn’t ‘isle’ now I come to think of it - I’ve seen that twice very recently.

There was no point in saying anything, though. Not long previously there had been a very basic mistake (it’s/its) on printed notices all over the shop. Since the manager happened to be on the shop floor I politely pointed it out, but it was clear that he had no idea what I was talking about!

Yes. @aggie, of course language evolves, but that’s IMO a rather different thing from SPAG mistakes. Some words have come to have different meanings since e.g. Jane Austen’s era - ‘vicious’ is one that comes to mind, ditto ‘nice’.

Mischievious instead of mischievous is the one that gets me and I hear newsreaders etc using it.

aggie

I know several people who “ speak like this “ none are “cleaners “
Language evolves , it is not static

Aggie I think you have misread. charleygirl’s post.

What annoys me about wrong positioning of apostrophes is why the writer has not troubled to check if it's correct.

A huge sign in our local supermarket said "Back to School! Stationary sale now on!" [hmmm]

Yes, language evolves, but there will always have been people who didn't care for the changes while they were taking place.

A lot of languages manage quite well without the genitive apostrophe and English seems to be moving in that direction, but why anyone would think an apostrophe was necessary in a plural beats me!

Alexa, I feel certain that those who use apostrophes wrongly, don't know the rules and therefore cannot check them.

I have taught English as a foreign language for years, and all my pupils have been taught the rules and didn't find them difficult, which rather points to the fact that you need to have been taught them.

The apostrophe that annoys me most, one that is often seen in books, is the one misplaced in names — James’ instead of James’s, Charles’ instead of Charles’s.

As for fewer and less, I agree too that ‘fewer than 10’, sounds better than ‘ less’ but, some grammar books will say that the two words are interchangeable. I still think it sounds wrong.

I was always taught that possessive form of nouns ending in ‘s’ should only have an apostrophe and not an additional ‘s’. So James’ or Thomas’ not James’s or Thomas’s. Double ‘s’ looks and sounds unwieldy/unnecessary

Both are correct. I agree with Katek that Charles' looks neater than Charles's

Katek

I was always taught that possessive form of nouns ending in ‘s’ should only have an apostrophe and not an additional ‘s’. So James’ or Thomas’ not James’s or Thomas’s. Double ‘s’ looks and sounds unwieldy/unnecessary

I was taught that too, although I understand both are now acceptable. James' or Mrs Jones' is the older form.

Katek - I was taught that too. James’ not James’s.

I dislike seeing “your”
instead of “you’re”. For example, “your very kind to take me shopping”.

I usually write James's unless the person is a Personage such as St James then it's James'.

But I would not write 'Alexis's' because that is uncomfortable with all the hissing . I write Jesus' not Jesus's. Socrates' not Socrates's.

It depends like so much else especially in matters of morality.

Special offer from a garden centre:
"Cacti Plant... Free"
I'm just wondering how many I can claim ?

I was taught that too. James’ not James’s.
tickingbird I use James' when there is (are?) more than one James!

Alexa

I usually write James's unless the person is a Personage such as St James then it's James'.

But I would not write 'Alexis's' because that is uncomfortable with all the hissing . I write Jesus' not Jesus's. Socrates' not Socrates's.

It depends like so much else especially in matters of morality.

I don't understand what morality has to do with it.

Many of us were taught to write James' or Thomas' at school. It used to be called a Saxon genitive and used to be the norm. These days, both forms are "correct", although an additional "s" isn't used for biblical names.

It's to do with custom and practice rather than "correctness".

Rufus2

^I was taught that too. James’ not James’s.^
tickingbird I use James' when there is (are?) more than one James!

No Rufus2, if there was more than one James, it would be Jameses! As in This house belongs to the Jameses, or This is the Jameses' house.