|
Many people will say that these errors are now so common place in English that the language has changed, even though they are inadvisable to use in formal contexts and if e-sports hopes to ascertain a level of legitimacy in the eyes of the world it is important that we don't speak like we've been pulled from the ghetto too poor to afford primary education.
'He needs to get lings out quick.'
'He needs to get lings out quickly.'
A very common one I encounter. The mistaken application of an adjective in lieu of an adverb. The simple rule of thumb is that an adjective modifies a noun, whereas an adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or even other adverb. Typically adverbs in English are derived from adjectives by affixing -ly, but this is not absolute. In some cases this is irregular such as 'well' being the adverbial form of 'good'. In some cases both forms are the same such as with 'very' and 'verily' in fact means something entirely different.
To see when to use an adverb, one can use the simple rule of thumb. If one can say 'in an x manner'. Then it is an adverb. In this case one can say 'He needs to get lings out in a quick manner.', therefore it is an adverb and 'quickly' has to be used rather than 'quick'.
'It's not going too well for Stephano here, I don't think.'
'It's not going too well for Stephano here, I do think.'
Seems to be very common for British casters, not so much for their American counterparts. Anyone having paid a modicum of attention in primary education would know that a double negative makes a positive. If one doesn't think that it is not going too well for Stephano, then surely one thinks it is indeed going quite well for him?
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
The use of the plural verbal conjugation 'are' most likely stems from a mistaken idea that 'Koreans' is the subject of the sentence. It is not, 'a lot of Koreans' is, the head noun of that phrase being 'a lot'. 'of Koreans' here being a partitive qualifier and 'a lot' a nominative quantifier. The construct is quite similar to 'a cup of tea' and morphologically identical to 'a father of children' as English does not morphologically destinguish between partitive and genitive qualifiers like so many languages.
Apart from that, the subject can easily be seen to be singular since the indefinite article 'a' is used, which in English cannot be used with a plural nominal in any way. Therefore, the verb should conjugate in the singular and 'is' rather than 'are' should be used.
'He's getting to a high colossi number.'
'He's getting to a high colossus number.'
They say hypercorrection is a greater sin than genuine ignorance. Many casters, attempting to sound educated use the classical plural of colossus in a situation where a singular number is required. Compound nouns in English rarely if ever take the plural form of a modifying noun. Even in cases where the noun is a plurale tantum such as 'trousers' compounds still use the singular as in 'trouser pocket'.
As a related error, the plural 'nexi' is also often encountered, especially by Wolf. The analogy of replacing -us by -i to form plurals in Latin is crude at best. While it is true this rule applies for masculine o-declension nouns in Latin such as 'colossus'. There are a variety of other nouns such as feminine u-declension, masculine u-declension, neuter consonant-declension nouns where it does not apply at all. While there is indeed a masculine o-declension substansive participle 'nexus' with plural 'nexi' in Latin, it means 'he who is bound'. The masculine u-declension noun 'nexus' with plural simply 'nexus' like any masculine u-declension noun is the actual source of the building, and means 'that which binds'.
Artosis is also often found fondly saying 'octopi', octopus is not a masculine o-declension noun, it is a neuter consonant declension noun. The 'us' in octopus in fact is a long u, not a short u as in colossus. This difference was clearly pronounced in Latin, but not written in inscriptions. The correct Latinate plural is in fact 'octopodes', which just sounds silly. Most sources, such as Fowler, recommend simply saying 'octopusses', as 'octopi' makes you seem pretentious to educated people, and 'octopodes' makes uneducated people not even know what you're talking about.
As a side not: the Latinate plural of 'phoenix' is 'phoenices'. Much like 'matrix' and 'matrices'. Latin plurals can actually be quite complicated and in order to correctly form them the declension class, stem, and gender of the noun in question must all be accounted for.
'Hyun's so much better than him.'
'Hyun's so much better than he.'
In this case, the incorrect use of the oblique 'him' rather than the nominative 'he' stems from the mistaken perception that 'than' is a preposition. While there are connectives which can function like prepositions in English, and doing so often subtly changes the meaning of the sentence 'than' is not one of them. To see it cannot be a prepostion we can establish by that we cannot make sentences outside of comparison from it 'we walk than him ' makes no sense. While for instance a true connective which can also be a preposition can be used much like that, such as 'we sleep except him'.
As 'than' is a connective which connects two sentences. The sentence above is simply the short form for:
'Hyun's so much better than he is.'
As saying 'than him is' sounds more than fishy. The correct form to use is 'he'.
However, make no mistake the similar 'as' can in fact serve as a preposition. In fact 'I say this as he' and 'I say this as him' mean two different things. The former is short for 'I say this as he says this.' When we say 'I do this as the manager of this company.', we typically don't mean 'I do this as the manager of this company does this.', though it is at all possible as only pronouns still inflect for case in English and the sentence is ambiguous.
All in all, I think it quite important to immediately mail the sponsors of these casters to apprise them of the grave grammatical atrocities commited by them so they can be replaced by people who don't to further the legitimacy of e-sports.
Edit: I forgot a couple of annoying ones, firstly, as Monk points out:
'He's coming in with a huge amount of Zerglings.'
'He's coming in with a huge number of Zerglings.'
Zergling is a count noun, it can be counted, one can have 'one Zergling', or 'two Zerglings', one cannot have an amount of any count noun, only of mass nouns. One has a certain amount of creep, but a certain number of Zerglings.
Other distinctions to be upheld are 'few' and 'many' for count nouns contrasting 'little' and 'much' for mass nouns.
'Aren't I?'
'Am I not?' or 'Ain't I?'
This one is particularly interesting. For some reason a stigma has been attached to the use of 'ain't' over the last 100 years in English, most likely because many people incorrectly use it in the third person. However 'ain't' is simply a contraction of 'am not', much like 'aren't is for 'are not'. It is surely ungrammatical to say 'Aren't I?', 'Are I not I.R. Baboon?'...? However people seem to prefer the ungrammatical to the stigmatic for some reason.
'... casted by Khaldor & Wolf.'
'... cast by Khaldor & Wolf.'
The perfect participle and preterite of 'to cast' is simply 'cast' I'm afraid, not 'casted', this is quite common for verbs already ending in a dental plosive, another example being 'to put'. The die was cast by Julius Caesar as he crossed the Rubicon, it wasn't casted by him.
 
|
United States8476 Posts
I was just about to make a thread like this. However, you're missing the most common error. Countable vs uncountable nouns:
He has a high amount number of colossi.
He has less fewer minerals than his opponent.
He has much many more hellbats than he should.
There's also a few more that I was going to include.
|
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
? should be the first one. just seems so awkward to say "a lot of people is doing X". You morph it since those are individuals performing the action.
On July 21 2013 10:36 Entirety wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2013 10:32 Roe wrote:
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
? should be the first one Did you even read the post? 
Yeah, and I didn't really see any reason to use the latter sentence.
|
On July 21 2013 10:32 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
? should be the first one
Did you even read the post?
|
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
Nope.
And the Hyun one is incorrect too, You correct something that isn't wrong, into a correct usage of he, but him is still the most commonly used (and correct) manner of saying something along those lines.
Your (mistake for your own benefit) basically correcting things that aren't incorrect in a speech pov or are used all the time as common slang, therefore while they are technically wrong, they aren't because its slang.
Slang isn't meant to be correct english from a dictionary, it's just meant to make sense. (they dont say him is because it doesn't make sense, they say him.)
So, this blog is just wrong and full of fail. I dont get where you're coming from on alot of angles.
Also, using a made up plural on a made up word then claiming its wrong? Uhuh.
I guess slang is hard to comprehend when english is your second language and you don't use it as well as native speakers, so you don't understand it fully.
Therefore you shouldn't have written this blog in the first place.
You could argue commentators shouldn't use slang in their casts, but common slang like this is used in 95% of normal day speech and in most cases 100% for people. Asking them to change the way they've spoken for their entire lives when its not technically incorrect is a bit much. Even if it does upset non-native speakers lol
But dont get me wrong, most of these aren't even slang and its like your reading descriptions from a dictionary but dont fully understand how to use these words
|
"A lot" is always taken as plural. You can never have "a lot" of a noun, and it be singular.
Therefore, you should use "are," not "is." You are just over-thinking this one.
Edit: Corsair. Worth it.
|
On July 21 2013 10:39 HardlyNever wrote:
"A lot" is always taken as plural. You can never have "a lot" of a noun, and it be singular.
Therefore, you should use "are," not "is." You are just over-thinking this one.
Damn, I think you have a lot of intelligence.
|
On July 21 2013 10:13 monk wrote:
I was just about to make a thread like this. However, you're missing the most common error. Countable vs uncountable nouns:
He has a high amount number of colossi.
He has less fewer minerals than his opponent.
He has much many more hellbats than he should.
There's also a few more that I was going to include. Oh yeah, was originally planning on adding just one, just forgot about it for some reason.
On July 21 2013 10:39 HardlyNever wrote:
"A lot" is always taken as plural. You can never have "a lot" of a noun, and it be singular.
Therefore, you should use "are," not "is." You are just over-thinking this one.
Certainly not, 'lot' is a noun like any other, it just means a particularly large quantity, it even has its own plural. 'Lots of Koreans are doing that strat.'.
It should also be 'a number of them is ...' etc.
|
My god, a group of people in this thread are trying to be smarter than they really are, or something. Group is just a singular noun, so I have to use is, right? No. Group has a plural too. Groups. You still use group and the plural form of is, depending on the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
Just stop. You're just digging a hole for yourself.
|
Shit i shouldn't reply while semi-drunk the morning after, HardlyNever summed everything up with one link what i spent 10 minutes typing out and i still didnt put the correct fucking word in.
gg no re
|
On July 21 2013 10:51 HardlyNever wrote:My god, a group of people in this thread are trying to be smarter than they really are, or something. Group is just a singular noun, so I have to use is, right? No. Group has a plural too. Groups. You still use group and the plural form of is, depending on the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IdiomJust stop. You're just digging a hole for yourself.
Not only do you make a totally incorrect statement, you then go on to show that you have no understanding of what an "idiom" truly is. I think the hole is being dug around you?
Just because proper grammar is not widely recognized does not make it incorrect. For example, lots of people are accustomed to saying "none of them are going to advance" when the correct form is "none of them is going to advance" (because "none" is a singular pronoun).
Let's not forget the classic mistake:
The winner of DreamHack will certainly solidify their reputation.
The winner of DreamHack will certainly solidify his/her reputation.
The words "group" and "lot" are singular.
A lot is being sold.
A group is going to be played tomorrow.
The phrase "of people" can be treated as a prepositional phrase.
A lot [of people] is happy.
A group [of people] is here.
Edit: As for idioms, idioms are not widely recognized grammatical mistakes - they are examples of figurative language.
"The cat is out of the bag." The sentence is perfectly correct in terms of grammar, yet it seems to make no sense when taken literally. That is an idiom.
"A lot of people are going to be disappointed." This sentence is simply incorrect. This is not an idiom at all, but it can be considered acceptable in everyday usage.
|
Entirety. Lets sum this up.
99% of people (who speak english as a NATIVE language) on this planet use common phrases / words / "borked" english such as this.
The dictionary tells you its wrong.
So are the majority of native speakers wrong because the dictionary says so, or has the language just evolved?
You would hate having a conversation with a scottish person.
|
On July 21 2013 10:51 HardlyNever wrote:My god, a group of people in this thread are trying to be smarter than they really are, or something. Group is just a singular noun, so I have to use is, right? No. Group has a plural too. Groups. You still use group and the plural form of is, depending on the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IdiomJust stop. You're just digging a hole for yourself. An idiom has nothing to do with this. An idiom is a combination of words whose meaning cannot be inferred from its components. Idioms are in fact typically grammatical even though their original meaning has shifted. In fact saying 'my trousers are ...' is a good example of an idiom, the actual meaning of the phrase shifted from what its grammatical morphology would normally signify. In this case the phrase is semantically singular, but grammatically still plural. Despite 'a lot of people' as a noun phrase referring to multiple people, it is still grammatically singular. This is not unlike saying 'The parliament has decided that ...' not 'have decided that ...' though the latter is becoming increasingly popular in uneducated forms of UK English.
It's quite common anyway:
'A pride of Lions is walking there.'
'A murder of ravens is flying there.'
'A herd of cattle is grazing there.
'A union of UK Psychologists has decided that ...'
A lot of people has gathered on the Town Square.
|
On July 21 2013 11:02 Capped wrote:
Entirety. Lets sum this up.
99% of people (who speak english as a NATIVE language) on this planet use common phrases / words / "borked" english such as this.
The dictionary tells you its wrong.
So are the majority of native speakers wrong because the dictionary says so, or has the language just evolved? Like I said in the op. There are of course different registers of English. In the most formal and highest register however all the things I outlined should be upheld, they speak vernacular English while casting which does not legitimize e-esports whatsoever.
Apart from that, it's obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek.
|
Sure, if the entire civilized world believes that the world is flat, does that make the world any flatter than it currently is?
Of course, languages do evolve. However, that does not change the fact that SiskosGoatee's points are technically correct. Perhaps they are not common, but they are correct.
|
You're just wrong. I'm done with this. Why is it so hard for people on the internet to say "Oh, I was wrong." But no, you keep going.
A group of people is wrong. Does that sound right to you? You know why it doesn't? Because it is wrong, as are you. Look, I used "you" and "are" together. I should have used "is" right? No. That isn't how English works.
You is wrong would be correct by your entirely one dimensional argument (singular vs plural).
Ok, now I'm done. You can continue arguing if you want, but I'm not going to ram my head into this brick wall anymore. Maybe someone else can take up the torch. If they is feeling up to it .
|
Shit i need to leave this thread or im going to get banned, goodbye.
Doesn't Legitimize esports? Ahahahahaha
Quick shutdown all sports apart from ice-skating and bowls. They aren't legit! Maybe golf too? Never heard golf commentators before.
|
These sentence patterns are widely used in sports commentary and journalism. They're absolutely fine.
Apart from the ones related to numbers, all of your examples sound very weird to native speakers.
|
On July 21 2013 11:06 HardlyNever wrote:
You is wrong would be correct by your entirely one dimensional argument (singular vs plural). No, my argument applies only to the third person. My god, get a basic grasp of English verbal conjugation:
Behold, the verb 'to be' in English, for your viewing pleasure:
Long infinitive: to be
Short infinitive: be
present forms:
- singular:
- - first person: am
- - second person: art
- - third person: is
- plural, all persons: are
past forms:
- singular
- - first person: was
- - second person: wert
- - third person: was
- plural, all persons: were
subjunctive I: be
subjunctive II: were
perfective participle: been
imperfective participle: being
gerundive: being
Now, what's up with 'art' and 'wert' eh? Well, that's entirely my argument, you use 'are' in 'you are' instead of 'you art' when it is singular because even though it is semantically singular, it is grammatically plural. that's an idiom, the grammatically singular form is 'thou art'. The reason we are currently using the plural form in 21th century English for both singular and plural is because the English are a bunch of overly polite people. It was originally only used in formal occasions, to use the plural in lieu of the singular as a sign of respect, eventually the plural form almost completely stopped existing because it became rude to use. even in informal situations but up to 1800's you still saw people using 'thou art' or 'thou walkest' etc in informal situations.
However, you can still see it, for instance, God is properly addressed with the singular form to intimate the personal relationship everyone is supposed to have with Him. So one says 'Our father, who art in heaven.'.
|
On July 21 2013 10:09 SiskosGoatee wrote:
'A lot of Koreans are using this new strat.'
'A lot of Koreans is using this new strat.'
The use of the plural verbal conjugation 'are' most likely stems from a mistaken idea that 'Koreans' is the subject of the sentence. It is not, 'a lot of Koreans' is, the head noun of that phrase being 'a lot'. 'of Koreans' here being a partitive qualifier and 'a lot' a nominative quantifier. The construct is quite similar to 'a cup of tea' and morphologically identical to 'a father of children' as English does not morphologically destinguish between partitive and genitive qualifiers like so many languages.
Apart from that, the subject can easily be seen to be singular since the indefinite article 'a' is used, which in English cannot be used with a plural nominal in any way. Therefore, the verb should conjugate in the singular and 'is' rather than 'are' should be used.
'He's getting to a high colossi number.'
'He's getting to a high colossus number.'
They say hypercorrection is a greater sin than genuine ignorance. Many casters, attempting to sound educated use the classical plural of colossus in a situation where a singular number is required. Compound nouns in English rarely if ever take the plural form of a modifying noun. Even in cases where the noun is a plurale tantum such as 'trousers' compounds still use the singular as in 'trouser pocket'.
As a related error, the plural 'nexi' is also often encountered, especially by Wolf. The analogy of replacing -us by -i to form plurals in Latin is crude at best. While it is true this rule applies for masculine o-declension nouns in Latin such as 'colossus'. There are a variety of other nouns such as feminine u-declension, masculine u-declension, neuter consonant-declension nouns where it does not apply at all. While there is indeed a masculine o-declension substansive participle 'nexus' with plural 'nexi' in Latin, it means 'he who is bound'. The masculine u-declension noun 'nexus' with plural simply 'nexus' like any masculine u-declension noun is the actual source of the building, and means 'that which binds'.
Artosis is also often found fondly saying 'octopi', octopus is not a masculine o-declension noun, it is a neuter consonant declension noun. The 'us' in octopus in fact is a long u, not a short u as in colossus. This difference was clearly pronounced in Latin, but not written in inscriptions. The correct Latinate plural is in fact 'octopodes', which just sounds silly. Most sources, such as Fowler, recommend simply saying 'octopusses', as 'octopi' makes you seem pretentious to educated people, and 'octopodes' makes uneducated people not even know what you're talking about.
As a side not: the Latinate plural of 'phoenix' is 'phoenices'. Much like 'matrix' and 'matrices'. Latin plurals can actually be quite complicated and in order to correctly form them the declension class, stem, and gender of the noun in question must all be accounted for.
For the first point, http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst1959_-is-a-large-number--or-are-a-large-number-.aspx
The conclusion they've arrived at says you're wrong.
For the second point, English grammar rules don't extend into fictional literature. Either way is correct by the fact that English grammar/plurality rules don't apply in fictional worlds. The plural of Nexus could be Cannon, and that could be entirely correct, however confusing it would be. Grammar rules also don't extend to proper nouns. Octopi is a correct variant of the plural of octopus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
