True.

Some lines can be translated word by word from Dutch, others can't. If I only could get red underlines in those cases .

You would need to install the English version, somehow.

The English version of DDN? I think I have that one.
Wouldn't know about any other version.

No, spell check. LOL

Re "aich" or "haich", wiki has a great explanation - I always thought "haich" was plain out wrong, but turns out it depends on your religion! haha.

en.wikipedia.org . . .

"In almost all dialects of English, the name for the letter is pronounced /ˈeɪtʃ/ and spelled ⟨aitch⟩[1] or occasionally ⟨eitch⟩. The pronunciation /ˈheɪtʃ/ and hence a spelling of ⟨haitch⟩ is often considered to be h-adding and hence nonstandard. It is, however, a feature of Hiberno-English[2] and other varieties of English, such as those of Malaysia and Singapore. In Northern Ireland it is a shibboleth as Protestant schools teach aitch and Catholics haitch.[3] In Australia, this has also been attributed to Catholic school teaching and is estimated to be in use by 60% of the population.[4]


The perceived name of the letter affects the choice of indefinite article before initialisms beginning with H: for example "an HTML page" or "a HTML page". The pronunciation /ˈheɪtʃ/ may be a hypercorrection formed by analogy with the names of the other letters of the alphabet, most of which include the sound they represent.[5]


The non-standard haitch pronunciation of h has spread in England, being used by approximately 24% of English people born since 1982[6] and polls continue to show this pronunciation becoming more common among younger native speakers. Despite this increasing number, careful speakers of English continue to pronounce aitch in the standard way, although the non-standard pronunciation is also attested as a legitimate variant.[7]"

Very hinteresting!

snot85 wrote:

English is one of the most difficult languages because we make all these rules, and then we create exceptions to them.

Welsh is the biggest offender of this in my experience.

I come from a multilingual family and speak numerous languages. My spelling is quite pitiful much of the time. Mostly because I think I just sound things out wrong and cannot remember the rules for so many languages. Some languages have conflicting rules also. I think I am about as likely to spell a word properly if I just fist-smash the keyboard. Thank god for spell-check.

I can't stand the should of, could of, would of! It's actually should've, could've, would've for should have, could have, would have. Drives me nuts! and ect instead of etc.

cmdc wrote:

I can't stand the should of, could of, would of! It's actually should've, could've, would've for should have, could have, would have. Drives me nuts! and ect instead of etc.

I KNOW!!!! It just comes down to people forgetting. Not to say that my English is always proper, I know that I mess up, but I try my best, when writing.

^ I try to rite good all sew...

Seriously though, I really, really appreciate this topic, and I'm encouraged to see so many participants in this discussion. Just when I think all possible errors have been mentioned, someone comes up with another one or two... There are many opportunities to butcher the English language, and it makes you realize how often putting together a sentence is like tip toeing through a minefield!

My only concern is for ddn-ers who may not have good command of this crazy language, and may hesitate to contribute because their writing skills are not strong enough. It would be great if everyone could write grammatically impeccable posts, but I'm more inclined to encourage all to express their thoughts as best they can (in a courteous and respectful way, of course), without worrying about the mistakes they are making... At the rate we're going with this thread, anyone searching for answers to usage questions should be able to find help here!

I recall, in my creative writing class in school, that the teacher never corrected grammar. She said that was the English teacher's job, she just wanted us to create.

It's all about, if you live in the USA, or use English in your business, it is important to appear knowledgeable in it.

I have read websites of major corporation, and emailed them about the error. Everyone is fallible.

^You had a creative writing class in addition to English class? You lucky person, you!

I love the study of languages, including English. Writing correctly is a priority for me, but I recognize that it may not be so for others.

Dream_chaser, I agree with you that everyone is fallible. I've found spelling and usage errors in major newspapers, in published books and on news broadcasts. It does not make it easier for people to learn the rules when so many (who should not be!) are breaking them. Further I worry about the demise of the written language and its expressive properties, because of technological shrinkage of words and sentences, and (hopefully not) thoughts. I'm relieved that ddn instructs to use fully spelled-out words and to avoid using "netslang or netspeak."

This is an acknowledgment (or is that acknowledgement?) of your excellent judgment (or is that judgement?) in starting this topic -- thanks!

In my senior year of high school, I only needed English to finish my graduation credits, so all of the rest of my classes were optional for me and I jumped on getting classes of my choice.

I do like that they do not allow netspeak.

If you're a grammar nerd like me, you should check out the book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" by Lynne Truss. I've been called pretentious for reading the book "for fun," but what can I say? I really love grammar. Always have.

It's available on Amazon for as little as a penny: www.amazon.com . . .

I gotta say, sometimes I go back a read a post I can no longer edit and think "oh, holy hell, I sound like an idiot." A lot of the time I am posting from my phone, which is not easy to type on or edit. And I have spell check turned off because I can't stand that it never recognizes the words I use in my texts...

I really do have good grammar and spelling, but there are just some things I miss. I just saw that I wrote "sidded" instead of "sided" on one of my posts. Sometimes "bad grammar" is just a crappy phone.

snot85 wrote:

If you're a grammar nerd like me, you should check out the book "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" by Lynne Truss. I've been called pretentious for reading the book "for fun," but what can I say? I really love grammar. Always have.

It's available on Amazon for as little as a penny: www.amazon.com . . .

Ordered it!

I thought of another one: "unique." People will talk about having the most unique Christmas sweater, or: "This sweater is more unique than that one!"

My dad was Mr. Grammar, and he'd flip out when he heard that. In his words: "There are no degrees of uniqueness."

From Merriam Webster:

Adjective:
Being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else: "the situation was unique in modern politics"; "original and unique designs".
Noun:
A unique person or thing.
Synonyms:
singular - single - only - sole - unparalleled

So how do languages become illogical?

1. For starters, every language is put together by a committee, and the committee members span several (if not many) generations.

2 People travel, bringing their languages with them, and pouring their languages together like” too many cooks”.

3. Then, to standardize the language, we appoint authorities and grant them tenure.

4. Those who incur difficulties in following the rules form their ownregions and rules.

5. Finally, we keep inventing new activities for which we never before had vocabulary.

This is why overly complex projects look like Towers of Babel.

Christine wrote:

Dare we even speak of "Who" and "Whom" ?

Who or what is fooling whom or whatm?

Are you determined to build a totally logical language? You might end up with overly long words:

Dog: Barkundpantundschniffer.
Dog catcher: Barkundpantundschniffercatcher.
His truck: Barkundpantundschniffercatcherwagon.
Garage for truck: Barkundpantundschniffercatcherwagonhausen.
Truck repairman: Barkundpantundschniffercatcherwagonfixer.
His union: Barkundpantundschniffercatcherwagonfixerfedderbettenbund.

Want to build a world language? I invite others to finish describing that process, but the first steps would be to get rid of the stumbling blocks. For example, one could arrange for representatives from Samoa to meet with representatives from Poland. The objective would be to trade vowels for consonants to full equilibrium.

Hahahaha!!

It does not take much to make my head spin, so I am dizzy right now.

Ok, so I found this for me, and all of you.

Who is going to look at this? Whoever wants to!!

Who is correct?
Yes, though it may depend on whom you ask!
“Who” and “whoever” are subjective pronouns; “whom” and “whomever” are in the objective case. As simple and important as that distinction is, many people have difficulty deciding on the proper usage of “who” and “whom” in sentences.
The two sentences below illustrate the easy usage in which “who” is clearly the subject and “whom” is clearly the object. In such simple cases, virtually everyone can determine the proper choice:

Who is that masked man? (“Who” / subject)

The men, four of whom are ill, were indicted for fraud. (“whom” / object)

When “who” is not the main subject of the sentence, however, many people become confused. They tinker and change who to “whom.”

It was Thomas Jefferson, I think, who was the third president of the United States.

Notice that “who,” not “whom,” is still the correct form as the subject of the clause that follows. The proper name, Thomas Jefferson, could be substituted for “who” to make a perfectly good sentence:

Thomas Jefferson was the third president of the United States.

As a ready check in such sentences, simply substitute the personal pronoun “he/him” or “she/her” for “who/whom.” If he or she would be the correct form, the proper choice is who.” If “him” or “her” would be correct, use “whom.”

This technique of substituting a personal pronoun for the relative pronoun works nicely whenever you have difficulty deciding whether to use “who” or “whom,” assuming that you have no difficulty using the proper form of personal pronouns.

Even when the word order must be altered slightly, you can use the technique:

Mrs. Dimwit consulted an astrologer whom she met in Seattle. (She met him in Seattle.)

Jones is the man whom I went fishing with last spring. (I went fishing with him.)

Joyce is the girl who got the job. (She got the job.)

Whom can we turn to in a time of crisis? (Can we turn to her?)

The delegates differed as to who they thought might win. (Not whom. Here the entire clause is the object of the preposition. Substitution is particularly helpful in cases such as this. They thought he might win.)

Who is that masked man? (subject)

The men, four of whom are ill, were indicted for fraud. (object)

And, now, for a really tough test (or, at least, most people trip up on it):

I decided to vote for whoever/whomever called me first.

Give it to whoever/whomever deserves it.

It's “whoever” in both cases. Even though you can read the first sentence as “I decided to vote for him” (which would make it “whomever”), the entire phrase “(he) called me first” is the object of the preposition “for.” So, it's “whoever.” It's the same for the second example: “...he deserves it” wins out.

Three “easy-to-use” rules
so you'll always get it correct

Rule #1: Substitute “he/him” or “she/her”: If it's either “he” or “she,” then it's “who;” if it's “him” or “her,” then it's “whom.”

Rule #2: Every verb with a tense in a sentence must have a subject. And that word is always in the nominative case, so it's “who.” For example: In this sentence, “I decided to vote for whoever called me first”:
• “I” is the subject of “decided”
• “he” (whoever) is the subject of the verb “called.”

In the sentence, “Give it to whoever deserves it”:([You] give it to whoever deserves it.)
• “he” (whoever) is the subject of the verb “deserves.”
This rule supersedes the first rule as it relates to “who” and “whom.”

Note: Related to this rule is one that says: The subject of a phrase is always attached to that phrase — no matter what. For example:
Ask whoever reads that book to answer the question.

Break down the sentence thusly:
(You) ask him (he reads that book) to answer the question.

In the phrase “he reads that book,” you cannot separate the subject “he” from the phrase to which it is attached.

If you remember these two rules — substitute “he/him” or “she/her,” and that every verb with a tense must have a subject — you should solve the “who/whom” quandary every time.

If you apply those two rules and you're still not sure, apply the all-important Rule #3.

Rule #3: Give it a sincere and honest effort to determine if it's “who” or “whom.” If it takes more than a 30 seconds to figure it out, pick the one that sounds best to the ear (read it aloud) and move on. Why? Because even grammarians are likely to squabble over which to use. But always — always — apply rules #1 and #2 before using Rule #3.

OK, a quick test. Pick the correct word:

Ask whoever/whomever comes this way for directions.

This is a good read
litreactor.com . . .

I screw up which and that sometimes, so I especially liked that part.

hooray4jj wrote:

This is a good read
litreactor.com . . .

I screw up which and that sometimes, so I especially liked that part.

That's great! Yes, I have confused that one, too.

Late to the party on the different from/different than argument, but if I'm remembering it correctly it depends on whether you're using US or UK English - from and than are correct in their appropriate dialects (though don't ask me to remember which one is which! )

Maybe we need a universal language with one set of rules!! LOL

^There was an attempt to create an international language a while back (like a century ago?) with Esperanto. It was constructed to be an auxiliary language. I guess it did not really take off, although at least according to Wikipedia, there are people who know it and use it.

One of the challenges is that a language reflects a culture, and some words, thoughts, idiomatic sayings just don't translate; you could translate words, but you'd end up with different meanings. Or you could learn what the meaning is, but still not understand how the meaning "feels" to the native speaker, what cultural bias it carries innately.

I agree it would make things easier to have one, though... Maybe as the world continues to shrink, there will be other attempts at universality.

P.S. -- Dream_chaser, you seem to have matured quite a bit in your latest photo. It's as if you went from a little girl to a woman overnight!... (Nice picture, though!)