[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by samaspire

But are not both the same thing; the first one is in a statement, whereas the second one is in a conversation.

I'm just a novice here, so trying to clear a doubt.

BTW isn't hate an extreme opposite of prefer

The conversation is only the setting: most forum posts are part of a conversation. People use "prefer" as a synonym for "like," which it is not --- which also suggests that it is not really the opposite of hate! Preference also does not imply an extreme: it could be by a small margin.

Originally Posted by amitoj

Show off!

On the contrary. Remember that this is my mother tongue (and still only language [Blush]) and that I went to school in the days when literature and grammar were very much part of the curriculum. There were no really unusual or obscure words in that test, and I'm ashamed not to have scored 30/30!

Enervate was, I thought, the trickiest one: It's a word that I have misunderstand in the past. It foesn't get used that often, and when it does, one tends to remember it because it means the opposite of what people think it means.

It's a good thing that loose/lose was not there.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

....
It's a good thing that loose/lose was not there.

And better still that brake/break was not there! Or should that be '... were not there'?

[Thad E Ginathom]

I don't know. I think we are talking about one pair of words that gets confused, so singular, rather than two words. That might change according to how it is written:

lose/loose --- one pair

lose and loose --- two words

But I'm making this up as I go along

And, in accordance with the Rule of The Internet, my previous post criticising other peoples' (or should that be people's) errors contains at least two mistakes!

Time to brake loose!

(I wish I could find the break!)

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

And, in accordance with the Rule of The Internet, my previous post criticising other peoples' (or should that be people's) errors contains at least two mistakes!

Time to brake loose!

(I wish I could find the break!)

Looks like you 'want to brake free', like Freddy Mercury!

[dark.knight]

The problem (if I can call it one), in a country like India is that most people translate statements in their head, from their mother tongue to English. The second problem is that they pronounce many words different from how they are written and then write the word according to their pronunciation, this happens all over including in U.S - I've read articles where they write 'their' instead of 'they're'. The Indians pronounce lose as 'loose' and hence write that in the same manner, it would help if they pronounce it as looze which would alter it from the actual 'loose' word. I visualize the word if I get confused and that stops me from repeating the mistake.

Sometimes communicating orally with certain people becomes frustrating where I'd get 'ok' as an answer to a question.. that has happened to me several times and it throws me off. How can 'ok' be a substitute for an affirmative like 'yes' or 'correct' I fail to understand. In the end language is only a means of communication but if used properly, it can save many hundred words from being written extra or save many minutes of a long-drawn conversation and that is what I want.

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by dark.knight

The problem (if I can call it one), in a country like India is that most people translate statements in their head, from their mother tongue to English.

Honestly, i can't think of any other body part where they can translate statements!

Originally Posted by dark.knight

Sometimes communicating orally with certain people becomes frustrating where I'd get 'ok' as an answer to a question.. that has happened to me several times and it throws me off. How can 'ok' be a substitute for an affirmative like 'yes' or 'correct' I fail to understand. In the end language is only a means of communication but if used properly, it can save many hundred words from being written extra or save many minutes of a long-drawn conversation and that is what I want.

Good point.

[Thad E Ginathom]

dark.night, I was brought up to speak something close to "accent-less" English, but I often make the loose/lose mistake in writing. (of course, it is difficult to make it when speaking!)

How can 'ok' be a substitute for an affirmative like 'yes' or 'correct'

Because it is? It can mean other things too, but context sensitivity happens in English.

I'm OK with OK being used to mean... OK! OK? Well, no, it seems its not OK with you. OK.

[dark.knight]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I'm OK with OK being used to mean... OK! OK? Well, no, it seems its not OK with you. OK.

Ah yes I didn't explain the context properly but you're going to love this. Maybe such people use it purposely to deflect all blame/responsibility from themselves and confuse others, it goes like this :

Shouldn't you have done it yesterday itself? Why the delay?
Ans: Ok

Has the mail arrived or not?
Ans: Ok

I don't have to explain how speechless I become after those answers.

In another comical scenario I was reviewing a contract written by a lawyer who used too many unnecessary words/adjectives (as can be expected), and found terrible errors in the process. Retroactively used instead of retrospectively, per-rata instead of pro-rata.. cant remember them all but combined they were enough to make the agreement stand on its head.

[Thad E Ginathom]

ahh, yes, I see what you mean. It's like one of those conversations with a teenager where one side of the conversation is monosyllabic and may even only consist of grunts. The only thing one can do is to start acting like a parent, and repeat, endlessly, "I asked you why! So... Why? OK is not an answer."

It's interesting to do limited analysis like this. One example is, "But I was only...." Which is what 11-year-old schoolboys say.

I say limited, because there is some psychological study, which defines exchanges and roles in terms of adult/child/parent/etc It is interesting and useful, but also has the power to make people become very boring indeed!

(Is it NLP? I have forgotten)

And... I hope you sacked the lawyers!

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

... my previous post criticising other peoples' (or should that be people's) errors contains at least two mistakes!
....

Aye, it did.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

.... It's a word that I have misunderstand in the past. It foesn't get used that often, .....

These did not go unnoticed but were allowed to pass keeping in mind the advanced age of the gent in question and knowing that he knows the correct forms.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

And, in accordance with the Rule of The Internet, my previous post criticising other peoples' (or should that be people's) errors contains at least two mistakes!

That should be people's. People itself is a plural in this context. Same reason that it's Children's Day and not Childrens' Day.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by noopster

That should be people's. People itself is a plural in this context...

Correct for the first part. Not so for the second part of your post. 'People' is always plural, regardless of the 'context'.

[reverse_gear]

Originally Posted by noopster

That should be people's. People itself is a plural in this context. Same reason that it's Children's Day and not Childrens' Day.

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Correct for the first part. Not so for the second part of your post. 'People' is always plural, regardless of the 'context'.

Technically, "people" can have a plural as "peoples" in certain contexts. This is relevant when people as a noun is used to describe a breed or race or nationality. For example, Kumaon people in singular, and mountain peoples of the western Himalaya in plural. Somewhat similar to the plural of fish being either fish or fishes depending on the context.

Anyway, in the current usage, it should be people's. No confusion on that part.

[noopster]

^^ Absolutely. I remember this usage as part of a chapter in secondary school Civics when studying about the United Nations. It mentioned "the different peoples of the world" or some such, which was an eye-opener.

In any case, "childrens" is not a word

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by reverse_gear

Technically, "people" can have a plural as "peoples" in certain contexts....

That does not mean that 'people' is not always plural.