EPTPlease. PLEASE. Stop this.
Some grammatical errors casters keep making - Page 2
| Blogs > SiskosGoatee |
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
Please. PLEASE. Stop this. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:23 Blisse wrote: What are you talking about, the consensus in that thread barring the last post is overwhelmingly in favour of letting the verb agree with its grammatical subject.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. Octopi is a correct variant of the plural of octopus. Nexus is an English word whose plurals in English can either be Nexuses or Nexus. Octopus is also an English word whose plurals can be Octopuses or Octopodes, the latter of which may make you appear educated to some, but many people aren't going to understand what you're talking about.'Octopi' is a ridiculous bastardization from people coming up with something to appear intelligent, it is neither English nor Latin. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46135 Posts
My god, get a basic grasp of English verbal conjugation  | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:31 SiskosGoatee wrote: 'Octopi' is a ridiculous bastardization from people coming up with something to appear intelligent, it is neither English nor Latin. Oh the irony | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10346 Posts
At least that's what I thought. I have a math degree, leave me alone!  | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:44 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Except that 'a lot of' is not a modifier, it's nothing in fact 'a lot' is a noun phrase, 'of Koreans' is a prepositional phrase in this case signifying a partitive construct.All of them are fine except the fucking "a lot of Koreans are." I mean, "a lot" if a modifier for the the plural noun Koreans. You can't say "several koreans is," or "few Koreans is." Why? Because the modifiers "a lot," "many," and "few," all imply plurality! Therefore, "is" is not acceptable imo, even in the face of some nonsense about "is" relating to the modifier and not the noun. At least that's what I thought. I have a math degree, leave me alone! You can see it's a noun phrase because you can insert an adjective in between 'A talented lot of Koreans is ...' another way is 'that lot of Koreans is ...' not 'those lot of Koreans are ...' The reason it does not sound acceptable to you is obviously because your mind has been polluted by vernacular English. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:31 SiskosGoatee wrote: What are you talking about, the consensus in that thread barring the last post is overwhelmingly in favour of letting the verb agree with its grammatical subject. Nexus is an English word whose plurals in English can either be Nexuses or Nexus. Octopus is also an English word whose plurals can be Octopuses or Octopodes, the latter of which may make you appear educated to some, but many people aren't going to understand what you're talking about. 'Octopi' is a ridiculous bastardization from people coming up with something to appear intelligent, it is neither English nor Latin. The consensus of the people is to agree with the text - all texts state the the 'are' form is correct, regardless of the consensus. By your ideology, color is not a correct variant of colour. Yes it is, and so is octopi. Just because a word doesn't have its roots in Latin or Greek or whatever does not legitimize its existence. Octopi has existed long enough to be accepted as a variant of the original word, and most legitimate dictionaries will have accepted this fate, regardless of how ugly it is and how much English purists scoff at it, and mention something about accepting it not being a legal Latin pluralization. English evolves to accept words regardless of how "you're supposed to pluralize them". Does the word "D'oh" make you mad as well? | ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
At least some of us are getting a good laugh out of this! 5/5! | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46135 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Except that 'a lot of' is not a modifier, it's nothing in fact 'a lot' is a noun phrase, 'of Koreans' is a prepositional phrase in this case signifying a partitive construct. You can see it's a noun phrase because you can insert an adjective in between 'A talented lot of Koreans is ...' another way is 'that lot of Koreans is ...' not 'those lot of Koreans are ...' The reason it does not sound acceptable to you is obviously because your mind has been polluted by vernacular English. You're misusing "a lot". It's synonymous with "many", and used- more often than not- in the same way. Many people are scared. A lot of people are scared. Very few people (and certainly even fewer casters) refer to "a lot" as a singular grouping of items, as in "a pride of lions" being the same as "a lot of men". "Lot" is almost never used to describe the official grouping of a set of items, in the same way a pride is. On the contrary, it's used to refer to multiple things, which means it's indeed plural rather than singular. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On July 21 2013 11:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: Except that 'a lot of' is not a modifier, it's nothing in fact 'a lot' is a noun phrase, 'of Koreans' is a prepositional phrase in this case signifying a partitive construct. You can see it's a noun phrase because you can insert an adjective in between 'A talented lot of Koreans is ...' another way is 'that lot of Koreans is ...' not 'those lot of Koreans are ...' The reason it does not sound acceptable to you is obviously because your mind has been polluted by vernacular English. Oh, the joys of homonyms. You can say "A talented lot of Koreans", in which case you would be referring to a single specific set of Koreans, or you can say "A lot of talented Koreans", in which case you are referring to an unspecified number of individuals. In this context, however, it's the latter usage, seeing as this is a professional caster who would mention the "lot", i.e. team, by name. Also, he's bloody well using the latter definition. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 21 2013 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You're misusing "a lot". It's synonymous with "many", and used- more often than not- in the same way. That is the cause of the error, not an argument to its correctness. You don't say 'many of people', 'many' is a determiner. 'a lot' is a noun phrase. You can say that by that you can say 'The many great men that gave their lives that day.' but not 'the a lot of great men that gave their lives that day.'. Very few people (and certainly even fewer casters) refer to "a lot" as a singular grouping of items, as in "a pride of lions" being the same as "a lot of men". "Lot" is almost never used to describe the official grouping of a set of items, in the same way a pride is. On the contrary, it's used to refer to multiple things, which means it's indeed plural rather than singular. That they do it wrongly en masse is not excuse nor justification. It's still wrong. Grammatically it is a noun phrase and the verb should agree with it.Like I said, it even has its own plural 'lots of Koreans are ...' | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On July 21 2013 12:10 SiskosGoatee wrote: That is the cause of the error, not an argument to its correctness. You don't say 'many of people', 'many' is a determiner. 'a lot' is a noun phrase. You can say that by that you can say 'The many great men that gave their lives that day.' but not 'the a lot of great men that gave their lives that day.'. That they do it wrongly en masse is not excuse nor justification. It's still wrong. Grammatically it is a noun phrase and the verb should agree with it. Like I said, it even has its own plural 'lots of Koreans are ...' When it's half a continent doing it wrong en masse, it and all the other wrongness is generally accepted as a vernacular. | ||
|
SiskosGoatee
Albania1482 Posts
On July 21 2013 12:14 Hertzy wrote: Like I said in the first paragraph of the OP, they are speaking a vernacular and informal form. But if we are ever going to legitimize e-sports they need to stop doing that. They're already wearing a tie but they're still talking like uncultured barbarians. I'd rather have it they did it in reverse, drop the tie but speak as if you enjoyed more than 3 years of compulsory education.When it's half a continent doing it wrong en masse, it and all the other wrongness is generally accepted as a vernacular. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46135 Posts
On July 21 2013 12:20 SiskosGoatee wrote: Like I said in the first paragraph of the OP, they are speaking a vernacular and informal form. But if we are ever going to legitimize e-sports they need to stop doing that. They're already wearing a tie but they're still talking like uncultured barbarians. I'd rather have it they did it in reverse, drop the tie but speak as if you enjoyed more than 3 years of compulsory education. Are you really suggesting that most- if not all- commentators of other sports are saying "a lot is" instead of "a lot are"? How would this legitimize us? | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
Likewise the expression, "It's not ..., I don't think" is a very common and widely accepted and understood linguistic device. You're not saying, "It's not going well for Stephano, I don't think (that it's not going well for Stephano). You're saying, "It's not going well for Stephano, I don't think (that it's going well for Stephano). A lot of ... are vs a lot of ... is, is a horse that's been beaten to death and while some people still enjoy debating whether it's are or is and why should it be, the simple fact is that the vast majority of English speakers uses 'a lot of ... are' and not 'is', so it's pretty pointless discussing whether it's correct or not - it's how it is used by all but the most snobby wannabe linguists. I could go on but it's a pretty boring subject to speak about. Bottomline, you should remember that no language is set in stone, especially so when considering spoken dialects in informal settings. edit: read the OP's last post after writing this reply and felt sorry for myself for wasting the time on typing this out. oh well | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
It's the difference between "There is a lot of pepper in this soup" (the spice, pepper, is a non-count noun) and "There are a lot of peppers in this soup" (the vegetable peppers is a count noun). You could say "There is a lot of peppers in this soup" but this would be an extremely niche construction meaning literally that you ordered a fixed quantity of peppers called a lot and added them all to the soup, like a gaggle of geese or something along those lines. Oh, the joys of homonyms. You can say "A talented lot of Koreans", in which case you would be referring to a single specific set of Koreans, or you can say "A lot of talented Koreans", in which case you are referring to an unspecified number of individuals. In this context, however, it's the latter usage, seeing as this is a professional caster who would mention the "lot", i.e. team, by name. Also, he's bloody well using the latter definition. This is right. Edit: see http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/541/1/ for further discussion, and the example "A lot of Americans travel to Europe." If you said "A lot of Americans travels to Europe" you're talking about some specific lot of defined people that is doing the traveling. | ||
| ||
