I should of known...

[UnaCorda]

Yes, the title is deliberate - sorry to have been clickbaity.

Expecting to be flamed although am trying not to be offensive, but this has been bugging me. Can anyone suggest why certain otherwise apparently well-educated people make up their own grammar rules?

I'm thinking of things (all of which I've seen "committed" by numerous people) such as deciding "thank you" should be hyphenated, or separating sentences or clauses with ellipses rather than a comma/semicolon/full stop, or leaving a space before exclamation and question marks, etc. (there are probably others).

I'm not having a pop at anyone who is dyslexic, or didn't have access to a decent education or who is writing in a very relaxed way because the context is informal. More trying to understand why some people seem to follow their own special set of grammar and punctuation rules which are consistent, but wrong.

I see punctuation as a way of getting across the inflections that you can hear in speech, so I don't know why you would want to fuck about with that and make your meaning unclear in the process.

(And apologies that this isn't in Pedants' Corner, but there's hardly any traffic there.)

I have yet to see evidence that stricter rules make for clearer speech; nor do I believe that clarity is a particularly important goal.

Ooh, it is if you're writing technical or legal documents, instructions, claims, etc. I often come across ambiguity that could easily have been avoided and it throws me!

I think I read a story a while ago about some workers in a union winning a legal case because of an incorrect comma in their job description (or similar).
Clarity is important!

Oh and yesterday I was reading a newspaper article about Hattie the cat. It said 'the cat wondered in through the door'. Good god. If journalists can't write, and mistakes like this don't get picked up before publication, it convinces me that the world has gone to hell on a handcart

My DD is doing her GCSEs now.In primary school they wouldn't correct spelling or grammar or word put in phonetically.
I discovered this at a parents evening looking through her books.The teachers didn't correct things as it discourages children.Since she wasn't allowed to bring work home I couldn't correct it either.
It has taken a long time for my DD to unlearn things.

daddad - it's because there's an x, and we don't like '-ed' in close proximity to 'x,' because - unless you introduce a glottal stop, which many English speakers will notice as an oddity - the combination of '-xted' requires a repetition of stressed consonants.

The one that always has my eye twitching is “I seen”.

jack - ok, yes, clarity is important, and there you have me, because I should have clarified that I do not think clarity is an important issue in the evolution of language.

Language demonstrably does not evolve such as to restrict meanings. Often, it does the opposite.

Nodnol - I'm relieved to say I've never seen 'I seen'.

Hanged and hung....yes there is a difference.
I just wonder what English Language Teachers are teaching today in the age of SM.

Bare with me. Nooooooooooooo!

Sarah - yes, I think that's something to do with it, although you've expressed in more precise phonetic terms than I could! text already ends in something that sounds very much like the end of vexed - so brain is maybe tricked into thinking the "ed" is already there.

Also, as I mentioned above there a load of common verbs ending in t where the past tense doesn't inflect: you don't say cutted, putted, hitted...

So, I don't find it irritating as an error, I find it fascinating to see different rules fighting it out in actual language evolution.

Ooh I want to know the difference between 'but' and 'however' now too!

I wasn't taught much grammar in school other than the very basics mentioned above such as what a verb, noun and adjective is. I would love to understand it better - can anyone recommend a good website?

The words palate, pallet and palette are not interchangeable.

In the last two weeks I have seen "cleft pallet" and "a palate of colours" in the local newspaper. It makes my teeth itch, sorry.

I’m surprised how many people think should of / would of / could of are correct. I know it’s phonetic, but were they not corrected at school

I got through an English degree without knowing this. It was picked up in a PGCE essay and I've never made the mistake since. I was a big reader; I just never spotted it. In fact there are so many things I've taught myself so that I can teach them that it makes me wonder what I did learn at school. My Year 8 English teacher was a lazy old trout who used to sit at her desk and snooze while we drew posters.

I'm sorry,but are children not taught these things at school? If not, what are they being taught in English Language?

Also I saw a work document (I work in the NHS) talking about six monthly appointments. Now that means something very different from six-monthly appointments which is what was meant (and frankly much more likely in the NHS!).

I was never taught much grammar at school. I remember learning "its" (rather than "it's") but that's about it. I picked it all up from reading, mainly Enid Blyton! I could tell you what an adverb is but not a subject or object of a sentence, nor a gerund (I can only think of a cartoon from Down With Skool re that one).

daddad, yes, I think that's something to do with it

Yes, it could be, couldn't it? Who knows, though? I'm sure it's not like maths, where there's a clear-cut answer and one can spent multiple threads patronising anyone who joins in the conversation without professional-level knowledge.

clary that would give me the rage!

Jack, what the pallet/palate/palette? or six-monthly?

The six-monthly one DOES serve I hope to show that these things are often important for clarity. If you got a letter offering your child six monthly appointments you might be miffed not to hear again for half a year.

I think I read a story a while ago about some workers in a union winning a legal case because of an incorrect comma in their job description (or similar).

www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html

The six-monthly, for exactly those reasons!

Jocelyn ah yes, that's it. Even better: an ambiguous style choice rather than incorrect grammar, per se.

I'm sure it's not like maths, where there's a clear-cut answer and one can spent multiple threads patronising anyone who joins in the conversation without professional-level knowledge.

Ouch. I don't know why someone sharing their knowledge has to be seen as patronising. I didn't feel patronised when you explained about glottal stops and stressed consonants, even though that's beyond any expertise I had. I've never intentionally shared knowledge to try to belittle anyone else, only to enjoy explaining an interesting idea to those who might be less familiar.

I don’t mind too much on an Internet forum, as long as it’s legible. However, if your job involves a lot of report writing or other formal communication, a good level of written language is necessary.

Part of the problem with grammar is, there are archaic rules, old rules and modern, accepted rules. I do find some will stick rigidly to the archaic or old ones and swear blind they are correct over the modern, accepted rules.

One that annoys me is “there is a myriad of” rather than just myriad or myriads.

I also hate seeing reports written as the reader speaks rather than as it should be written. One example is over use of the word “that” as in “I thought that the price was too high” Fine in conversational speech but far too clunky in written language.

'Let's eat, Grandpa.'
'Let's eat Grandpa.'

And of course,
'Eats, shoots and leaves' which should have been
'Eats: shoots and leaves.

I did teacher training in the 1970s. We were told we shouldn't correct children's spelling and punctuation because it would stifle their creativity. I thought (but didn't say) that it was no good being creative if no-one could understand what you were trying to say.