The Auswine Forum

... OMG ... and we're not yet dealing with differences such as
would have and will have, should have, if I were to have, for example, because it seems indeed that both grammar AND verb conjugation and meaning are no longer taught.

The other "generic" one is: there is a few bottles in the cellar!

Somebody told me the other day they thought I was illiterate, I said that was a load of rubbish I could prove my parents were married.

Glen

Youse guys crack me up...

Maria

Let me first nail my colours to the mast: I am a language snob of the first order. I once had the exquisitely frustrating task of teaching Basic Communication Skills to first-year university students. It nearly killed me.

If you aspire to linguistic pedantry in any serious way you should consult:

http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html

This is a link to The Elements of Style: a vintage volume. In print it was a very thin book of less than 70 pages that neatly summarised all that you really need to know about good writing. The online version is a welcome tool.

If you are feeling a bit more extreme you should try: Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Perhaps a bit old-fashioned at times, but very thorough.

All that said, I still think that a forum should not be too concerned with splitting grammatical hairs, unless matters are confusing, ambiguous or downright misleading.

I'm still able to enjoy a good reisling every now and then, although I still can't take all that voigner. And champain leaves me cold.

Tristram

Theres nothing more dull than pedantry with exception of an argument between pedants.
shouldnt we contribute to the argument through content and colour rather than infinitly disect the simplest of statements

As a true pedant I strive to apply the first edition of Fowler's (1926) which is far more entertaining and pungent reading than the later editions. The examples given in that first edition often make great reading.

Oddly enough, precision and accuracy in writing are important - and watching a new generation of lawyers who generally understand neither grammar nor punctuation has its own fascinating horror...Of course one might expect wordsmiths to be more fastidious and protective of their tools of trade but alack when the trade is called a profession and rules might impede their creativity the little darlings just ignore the rules.

In English homonyms (and a failure of education) shoulder much of the burden for common abuse of language:-

Palate/pallet/ palette
their/there/they're
its/it's
your/you're

Other abuses include:
- making adjectives out of adjectives;
Americanisms (and their spelling of our common language);
- collective nouns with plural verbs (eg "the team are" : well the members of the team may be doing something but the team IS!);
- responding to an enquiry as to health (How are you) with a statement of moral rectitude (good) - since "well" appears to be used only for drawing water. Worse still when I point out that I made no enquiry as to their moral status the blank look I receive in response which suggests complete ignorance as opposed to neglect;
- a complete inability to understand that in the present tense a person may tell a big fib when he lies, or may recline when he lies but when he lays it is presumably an egg. Of course in the passive it may well refer to fornication.... as in "get laid".

What a tale of woe, and the inability to delineate the differences limits their ability to communicate while depriving them of an appreciation of fine distinctions, puns and even subtle variations in tone.

At least they have contributed one worthwhile addition to the English language which describes so much of their rendition : "fugly"

regards

fred wrote: Other abuses include:
- making adjectives out of adjectives;

Is this like making a silk purse out of another silk purse?

Americanisms (and their spelling of our common language);

And yet I think Bill Bryson had some interesting thigs to say about the various spellings - it seemed that often the American form which we may despise is in fact the older, more 'authentic' spelling. No specific words leap to mind, but still he had a point...
cheers,
Graeme

Though thoroughly enjoyable (for a pedant such as I am) - the thread has drifted from RB's initial wine-related post.

My pet hate (at the moment) is "sulphur" spoilage. I can tell you that damn few consumers can pick this fault - some wines do have it. Please, sulphide.

By the way fred - why wouldn't adjectives be adjectives? Fit, is an adjective in both forms of the homonym. "He is fit .... ." (physically educated) and (obs) "He is fit ... " (for the purpose).

I have to spring to the defence of The ORB for, however original his spelling is, he advertises that the RB is his proof reader!

GG

PS .... Orbs .... smooth round, shiny-topped objects

Grey Ghost wrote:
I have to spring to the defence of The ORB for, however original his spelling is, he advertises that the RB is his proof reader!

Sheesh, just his major articles and tour diaries, not every @*%$#@ post and snippet. And I try not to alter the expressions and "flavour", otherwise it wouldn't be authentic TORB.

I used to have the password to his web site and would jump in and fix a few things on the QT, but since his ISP had a meltdown a while back I don't have access any more.

just in case anyone is under any illusion, kwfc has no proof reader

Any complaints re spelling and poor journalism are promptly ignored and deleted