Wikipedia: Pedantry Matters.
Discussion
t.
) of different occupations who also fit the bill.Jimmy Recard said:
I've just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and I can't see a reason why the verb 'to comprise' couldn't be used passively.
It would be better as 'comprised from' though, I think.
Still, he's a bell end.
more importantly, a bellend with very little demands on his time. What a sorry existence that must be.It would be better as 'comprised from' though, I think.
Still, he's a bell end.
That's true and I admit to being particularly bad with becoming irritated at the wrong use of certain words.
But doing this every week for years and writing something akin to a university dissertation on it (for fun) is just too much.
I just think that there are situations that the passive form could be used correctly anyway. It would sound odd though.
"The eleven footballers are comprised by the team." Surely that would be correct although it sounds bloody strange.
But doing this every week for years and writing something akin to a university dissertation on it (for fun) is just too much.
I just think that there are situations that the passive form could be used correctly anyway. It would sound odd though.
"The eleven footballers are comprised by the team." Surely that would be correct although it sounds bloody strange.
Only a few lines in and he is quoted as saying "because I’ve gotten really, really good at it,".
I appreciate it is probably the author of the article misquoting but...
"gotten" FFS?
A word I have to my eternal shame, occasionally used when speaking in informal circumstances, but one I have never in my life written (or typed).
Have I found a new mission in life?
I appreciate it is probably the author of the article misquoting but...
"gotten" FFS?
A word I have to my eternal shame, occasionally used when speaking in informal circumstances, but one I have never in my life written (or typed).
Have I found a new mission in life?
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Only a few lines in and he is quoted as saying "because I’ve gotten really, really good at it,".
I appreciate it is probably the author of the article misquoting but...
"gotten" FFS?
A word I have to my eternal shame, occasionally used when speaking in informal circumstances, but one I have never in my life written (or typed).
Have I found a new mission in life?
"Gotten" is a perfectly appropriate word. Even though here in the UK we look on it these days as an "Americanism", it is, in fact, a very old form of the past participle form of the word "Got". We actually use a version of it all the time in the past participle of "forgot", which is, of course, "forgotten". I appreciate it is probably the author of the article misquoting but...
"gotten" FFS?
A word I have to my eternal shame, occasionally used when speaking in informal circumstances, but one I have never in my life written (or typed).
Have I found a new mission in life?
Another, less common but related word is "begotten".
Eric Mc said:
"Gotten" is a perfectly appropriate word. Even though here in the UK we look on it these days as an "Americanism", it is, in fact, a very old form of the past participle form of the word "Got". We actually use a version of it all the time in the past participle of "forgot", which is, of course, "forgotten".
Another, less common but related word is "begotten".
"circa 1150 to circa 1470"?Another, less common but related word is "begotten".
I do not speak as Chaucer would have done on a daily basis, nor Shakespear for that matter. Comprehending both may be something I find useful, but emulating their speech; not.
It's simply a North American 'slopyism' in my opinion. My excuse for using it is simply; it is what I grew up with in North America. My English teacher of the time would correct me for it though.
(clue: I am from the country where students spend the first day of class correcting the spelling mistakes in their US published text books)
I would no more expect the use of the word "ain't", though it regularly appears in Dickens, spoken by people of good middle to upper middle classes.
There is almost no time when 'gotten' can not be replaced by a simple 'got'.
And when it can not, such as in the quoted example; "because I’ve gotten really, really good at it,".
it becomes; "because I have become very, very good at it"
Not that difficult is it?
In speech, we all forget ourselves at times. When writing, sloppiness is what it is; sloppiness.
I may as well add that I have never in my life 'learnt' anything or ever 'spelt' anything, correctly or otherwise. They may well be in the dictionary now, but those spellings/pronunciations will never be in my vocabulary.
CorbynForTheBin said:
Like moths to a flame...
And you sir, and that name you are currently sporting.While any sensible man would agree in principal with the sentiment, only a fully paid up Labour party member would want to see his immediate demise.
He is, after all, the most unelectable Labour Leader this country has seen in some years. Beating even the survivor of the band of brothers fool of the last election by some margin.
Any sensible Tory will surely be praying he survives as Labour leader until the next election?
I have no time for any of the parties or their absurd, destructive, self serving policies.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
They may well be in the dictionary now, but those spellings/pronunciations will never be in my vocabulary.
Totally your choice.I don't use "gotten" either. But I'm not going to lay into someone who does. Indeed, I might even compliment them for using a gramatically more accurate version of the word.
There's even a chance tonight when we will get ourselves confused by singing "Should old acquaintance be forgot". We would normally say, of course, "Should old acquaintance be forgotten" - but it doesn't scan very well in the song.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 31st December 17:10
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff