To offer some grammar tips to anyone who might want them?

[UnaCorda]

I sincerely hope this doesn't come across as either rude or patronising - it genuinely isn't meant to. It's also not intended as a pedants' thread.

I just thought it might be useful to list a few common mistakes, with an explanation, so that anyone who isn't very confident with their written English might be able to correct errors which, for example, could perhaps count against them in a job application or when used in a professional context.

I'll start with three:

1. "Your" shows that what you're referring to (probably a person or object) belongs to whoever "you" is in the sentence; for example, "Your brother showed me your book". If you mean "you are" you need to write "you're".

2. "Non" is not a word on its own - it is negating something, such as in "non-stick" or "non-committal". ("None-stick" would be incorrect, as would "non of them".) "None" means there aren't any. "How many cakes are left?" "Sorry - none." Or, "How many of the children finished the test?" "None of them."

3. "Alot" is not a word and the same goes for "abit", "infront", "incase" and "inbetween". Instead use "a lot", etc., just like "a little".

Hope I haven't made any mistakes myself...

Yes, it is correct. But natwest doesn't know that and spell it with a c.

Equally loads of shops spelling metre the American way.

Don’t forget that the French and Germans differentiate between tu/vous and du/Sie still.

Many languages do this (I think we're rare in English not to) but that has nothing to do with the subjunctive which is what "if I were" is. You can also use it (the subjuntive) in a sentence such as, "I recommend that he read [rather than reads] one chapter each day."

However it's dying out in English which I guess is a shame.

If I were you- correct.
If I was you - never correct.
Nothing to do with formality. “Was” is the past tense -I was. But the sentence has nothing to do with the past, so it cannot be right to use “was“. “Were“ is not the past tense here. Don’t muddle it with “you were”- which is past tense. Same spelling but a completely different tense.

If it helps (I doubt it will), all the 'lesser v fewer' stuff is down to random blokes and their fancies in the 17th (maybe 18th, not my period and frankly don't care) century, rather than being meaningful. I mean, you might as well argue for no splitting of infinitives, which has surely been buried as a redundant attempt to impose Latin regulation on a non-Latin language by now?

@1Morewineplease - no, it's really nothing to do with formality.

'If I were you' is subjunctive - that is, as they say in the History Boys, the mood of possibility; it refers to things that are not the case. I am not you. But if I were you, I would ....'

'I was' is just a past tense. 'I was playing football yesterday'. 'I was at home last week'.

Neither of them has to do with using the third person (eg., 'madam') as a formal mode of address, nor with the conditional (eg., 'would').

I'm involved in research and people consistently say "the data is" or "the data shows." No! "Data" is the plural of the word "datum" and so it should be "the data are" or "the data show"!

The one that gets me is "we are limiting the amount of shoppers."

"Amount" + uncountable noun (amount of money, amount of love, amount of time)

"Number" + countable noun (number of pencils, number of dogs, number of cheeky fuckers)

Therefore, it should be "number of shoppers."

I haven't smashed in any shop windows over this issue. Yet.

Ah, sorry, @daisypond was quicker.

I do find it interesting two different posters have assumed that formality is the reason for different grammatical constructions. Are there any situations in English where you use a different grammatical construction to indicate greater formality? I don't mean if we're including colloquial speech, I mean in prim-and-proper grammar?

@Puffalicious

I know Lovecrumbs! I'm not in Edinburgh but know it well. I'm in the far cooler city just along the M8!

Now if only Scotland could sort out its shit weather (no offence - I grew up there) it would be very attractive.

(I nearly wrote "it's"!!)

I wouldn't say the subjunctive is dying out. Each time you say "I do not believe in the subjunctive" a verb falls down dead.

English did used to differentiate different types of "you" but they have died out yep.

I always think 'amount of shoppers' is indicative of a certain attitude towards countless hordes of faceless customers!

@CrispsForTea @DDemelza couldn't agree more. Infuriating! Also, criteria/criterion.

@TinnitusQueen Ah I see. And you couldn't bring yourself to type the incorrect version 😄 I understand.

@SarahAndQuack

Ah, sorry, *@daisypond* was quicker.

I do find it interesting two different posters have assumed that formality is the reason for different grammatical constructions. Are there any situations in English where you use a different grammatical construction to indicate greater formality? I don't mean if we're including colloquial speech, I mean in prim-and-proper grammar?

Yeah - "I would be grateful if yourself could sign and return the enclosed to myself." Or similar.

@SarahAndQuack

Ah, sorry, *@daisypond* was quicker.

I do find it interesting two different posters have assumed that formality is the reason for different grammatical constructions. Are there any situations in English where you use a different grammatical construction to indicate greater formality? I don't mean if we're including colloquial speech, I mean in prim-and-proper grammar?

Ah, I think you explained it more clearly! I was trying to avoid mentioning the subjunctive, but my attempts to do so just muddied the waters, I think.

@UnaCorda

Do you feel better now?

I feel fine, thanks for asking.

No problem :)

I can't imagine how much head space (or is it headspace?! Oh wait I don't give a fuck) people have to be able to be bothered about this on a forum.

People are writing on their phones, with auto correct which will often make chouces about your / you're. Life's too short to care about this stuff. Just relax.

@UnaCorda But that's just wrong.

Me and DH always take the piss out of people (usually in sales) who try to sound posh by saying things like "Would yourselves like to sit down?"

@unacorda - but that's colloquial! Or pretentious. But not standard grammar.

@daisypond - I find it really hard to explain grammar without using the terminology, which is frustrating because all it's really doing is saying 'it's like this because I said so'. And I really hate doing that.

American (southern) English still distinguishes between two types of you, doesn't it? You and y'all.

[quote theveryhungrybutterfly]**@CrispsForTea* @DDemelza* couldn't agree more. Infuriating! Also, criteria/criterion.

@TinnitusQueen Ah I see. And you couldn't bring yourself to type the incorrect version 😄 I understand.

[/quote]
I couldn't have phrased it better myself. My typing thumb seized up as I tried to do so 🤣

LilacSloth

'I would be very grateful if you could let me know as soon as possible.' How do I write this sentence correctly please.

I think it’s ok grammatically but clunky: a bit like ‘Please find attached...”

I’d say: “Please let me know as soon as possible”: the rest is (apologetic) waffle

[quote theveryhungrybutterfly]@UnaCorda But that's just wrong.

Me and DH always take the piss out of people (usually in sales) who try to sound posh by saying things like "Would yourselves like to sit down?"[/quote]
I know it's wrong! Hence the face.

Ah but OP as Billy Connolly once said 'There's no wrong weather just the wrong clothes.' You must admit, it's brilliant here (apart from the weather!).

[quote SarahAndQuack]@unacorda - but that's colloquial! Or pretentious. But not standard grammar.

@daisypond - I find it really hard to explain grammar without using the terminology, which is frustrating because all it's really doing is saying 'it's like this because I said so'. And I really hate doing that.[/quote]
Yes, I know it's pretentious (and wrong). I was trying to be facetious. It obviously backfired...

When people use Latin grammar on words that have been adopted into English, I'm afraid I judge them.

So if you say 'stadia' rather than 'stadiums' yeah. I'm judging. Ditto the data thing. I mean, who the hell uses the word 'datum'?

You can try and hold back time. but the Romans are done and gone.

'Amount' and 'number' - yeah, dying out due to pointless differentiation. Good.

A shame the hill I personally choose to die on is the use of 'disinterested' as a synonym for 'uninterested'. But I too must bow to the natural evolution of language. To do otherwise would be silly. Unless you are sticking with the original meaning of the word 'silly'