spindrift Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Just seen on other thread somebody put could of instead of could have. I thought it was script for an episode of Coronation Street. You ought to see some of the notes some of my colleagues add to customers details. Phone speak, no capital letters, no apostrophes, no full stops. You need a degree to decipher them. The idea of putting any notes on system is for it to be clear and concise so that others can read and understand it:roll: A manager at work spelled "allowed" as "aloud". Staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I recall one such report where the writer had used terms such as 'would of' instead of 'would have'. [...] This was a professional engineer. He is someone with a Master of Science degree My Father is an engineer and he's no good with words. It isn't unknown to be good at maths and industrial skills and bad with language. Acknowledging the variation in people's skills is one thing. Holding it above them and patronising people is very different. -------- Just seen on other thread A sentence with no subject. somebody put could of instead of could have. A subordinate clause with no conjunction. customers details. No possessive apostrophe. Grade = D - Try harder next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My Father is an engineer and he's no good with words. It isn't unknown to be good at maths and industrial skills and bad with language. Acknowledging the variation in people's skills is one thing. Holding it above them and patronising people is very different. -------- A sentence with no subject. A subordinate clause with no conjunction. No possessive apostrophe. Grade = D - Try harder next time. My comments on the Engineer who didn't know the problem with 'would of' were not a criticism of him. It was a concern that he had been allowed to get to that stage in his career without anyone ever making sure he could communicate in an appropriate way to do his job. Once it was explained to him, it didn't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My Father is an engineer and he's no good with words. It isn't unknown to be good at maths and industrial skills and bad with language. Acknowledging the variation in people's skills is one thing. Holding it above them and patronising people is very different. -------- A sentence with no subject. Somebody is subject A subordinate clause with no conjunction. Instead is conjunction No possessive apostrophe. OK made mistake there Grade = D - Try harder next time. I got Grade A in English Language when certificates were worth the paper they were written on, ie before GCSEs and an A level when they weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I got Grade A in English Language when certificates were worth the paper they were written on, ie before GCSEs and an A level when they weren't. I must say denlin, your posts are always clear and grammatically correct. A pleasure to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I must say denlin, your posts are always clear and grammatically correct. A pleasure to read. Why thank you kind sir and I must say that yours are pleasure to read and very entertaining although I have been taken in once or twice:blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Somebody is subject 'Somebody' is the object of the first clause and subject of the subordinate clause. The first clause has no subject. Instead is an adverb. The sentence should of read ( ) "I have just seen somebody on another thread who put could of instead of could have" if one was going to be a grammar pedant. (Edit; I presume you saw it, so "I" is the subject. Superman could be the subject, as far as we know.) Enjoy your qualifications. Paper is a wonderful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffield3 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 'Somebody' is the object of the first clause and subject of the subordinate clause. The first clause has no subject. Instead is an adverb. The sentence should of read ( ) "I have just seen somebody on another thread who put could of instead of could have" if one was going to be a grammar pedant. (Edit; I presume you saw it, so "I" is the subject. Superman could be the subject, as far as we know.) Enjoy your qualifications. Paper is a wonderful thing. My Bold. Don't you mean should have, not should of? It's a bit rich posting your own pedantry and then making a grammar error yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My Bold. Don't you mean should have, not should of? It's a bit rich posting your own pedantry and then making a grammar error yourself! :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 My Bold. Don't you mean should have, not should of? It's a bit rich posting your own pedantry and then making a grammar error yourself! Perhaps I'm wrong, but do you think that the little smiley face after the statement might have meant something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.