Grammer - puncturation - riting. Disgusting...

ASLEFshrugged

Recently I read "John Lyall; a life in football" by Dr Phil Stevens which I can thoroughly recommend you avoid, a truly badly written book that borrows heavily from others, contains some glaring factual errors and some appalling spelling mistakes.

"They needed to beat Newcastle at home on 21 April to rest third place from Manchester United"

Rest; cease work or movement in order to relax, sleep, or recover strength.

Wrest: forcibly pull (something) from a person's grasp

grey_til_I_dye

NE

I think you may have me/us confused with grammatical prescriptivists.

Personally, I'm in the descriptivist camp - interested in what is currently seen as acceptable use, rather than laying down the law.

A gerund is when a verb is used as a noun, so no, I don't think it is a gerund in that usage.

As to the rest, I wouldn't really be worried about any of them being used in a bathroom sign.

IronHerb

I saw a T Shirt at the airport which read - "I'm silently correcting your grammer"

NEoldiron

Grey, the reason I asked you and MrsG is that it is my understanding that you both have degrees in English. Sorry if I've got that wrong.
This was a genuine question and I was arguing/discussing it with two teachers (my wife and a friend).
My wife (who is not a native English speaker) teaches English as a foreign language and was therefore very interested in whether it was correct or not, and if not then what should it have been.
Perhaps MrsG's "their replacing" is what it should have been.

MrsGrey

English Lit ;ok

Involved absolutely no grammar. They assume if you've got that far, your grammar is probably functional enough. ;lol

grey_til_I_dye

NE

No, we do both have English degrees, although you'd find a great many English graduates who would know what was correct grammatically, but not necessarily know how to describe the rule behind a particular usage. That was certainly true for me, at least.

I regularly have to go to our grammar books or the Interwebby when an issue comes up in a lesson, to find how to explain why something is correct or not.

I don't feel very strongly about what is 'allowed' outside things which are clearly non-grammatical.

There are a wide variety of grammars used in spoken English (and dialect written forms.)

In general, my attitude is: if it sounds 'right' to a native English speaker then it is acceptable, since that reflects current usage.

I adopt a slightly more prescriptive attitude when I teach non-native speakers, since the exam boards have a set correct grammar in mind.

thornburyiron

It's a nightmare. On Saturday I was meeting a friend at 3pm and got there at 3.10. He said "I was sat here st 3". I said jokingly "no you weren't. You sat there st 3 or have been sitting there since 3 but you were not sat there at 3."
I wish I'd just said sorry I'm late as trying to explain the difference gave me a headache.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

Not sure what you feel is wrong with that.

There are a wide variety of grammars for spoken Enlgish in different parts of the country that don't adhere to 'standard' grammar rules.

I ain't done nuffing

for example, may be considered incorrect from a standard viewpoint, but it is perfectly acceptable usage within a cultural context.

thornburyiron

Grey I was taught at school, albeit several decades ago that phrases such as "I was sat" means that I was physically placed in the position. I sat or I was sitting means it was a voluntary individual action.
I agree that I was sat is common usage and I was not trying to wind my friend up and didn't expect the conversation to drag on.
Your example may be common usage and most people would accept it but if you take it literally would you question exactly what it was they had done.

grey_til_I_dye

thorn

But context is key.

In its cultural context (e.g. working class London)

I ain't done nuffing

would cause no problems with comprehension.

Even standard grammar/usage isn't always strictly logical:

Most English people would expect 'Am I not?' to be contracted to 'aren't I?' rather than what would seem to be the more grammatically 'logical' 'Amn't I?' (common in Irish English.)

The key is to know where non-standard usage is acceptable, and ideally, to have a mastery of standard grammar for when that is appropriate.

Expat_Hammer

;quaver
less all go fenetic
less all go fenetic
la la la la
;quaver

thornburyiron

Grey if you start to bring Irish English into it we are all doomed ;biggrin

chicagohammer

One of the reasons why I enjoy watching "Ripper Street" is due to the formal nature of the conversational Interactions between the cast. It is clear, at least to me, that a real effort has been made to differentiate the use of language from current use to try and reflect the Victorian period depicted.

It is also a great show, slightly dark at times but great nonetheless, they even had an episode centered around the Thames Ironworks football club.

SuzanneClaret

MrsGrey

;wahoo

NEoldiron

I take it you already know
of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you
on hiccough, thorough, slough and through.
Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps?

Beware of heard, a dreadful word
That looks like beard and sounds like bird.
And dead; it's said like bed, not bead.
For goodness sake, don't call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat,
(They rhyme with suite and straight and debt)

A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth in brother.
And here is not a match for there,
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there's dose and rose and lose --
Just look them up -- and goose and choose,

And cork and work and card and ward
And font and front and word and sword.
And do and go and thwart and cart --
Come, come, I've hardly made a start.
A dreadful language? Man alive,
I mastered it when I was five.
;hmm ;biggrin

chicagohammer

The one that catches out most midwesterners over here is

Mary, Marry and Merry

To me, three different words, with three different and distinctive sounds, however, a midwesterner cannot say them differently, they sound exactly the same.

Another one is Craig and Greg - both sound like Greg when spoken by a midwesterner.

It drives me nuts

MunichHammer

NE - a few years ago I could have told you exactly what the grammar rules on your question were but I am a little out of practice.
I think they have got a few forms mixed up and it might help to know what country you saw the sign in. In my opinion any of the following would be ok.

If you want them replaced.
If you want them to be replaced.
If you want us to replace them.
If you want replacing.

Personally I would opt for the first version.

NEoldiron

Munich, thanks for your reply, although your fourth suggestion is something that perhaps you should take up with my missus ;biggrin

I haven't been able to find out the grammatical reason why "if you want them replacing" is incorrect.

MrsGrey also suggested "their replacing" which I thought was a good one.

I actually saw the sign in a Travelodge in Reading (Berkshire) last week.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

If you want them replaced.
If you want them to be replaced.
If you want us to replace them.
If you want replacing.

;hmm

Replace with:

If you wish them replaced.
If you wish them to be replaced.
If you wish us to replace them.
If you wish replacing.

Or:

If you would like them replaced.
If you would like them to be replaced.
If you would like us to replace them.
If you would like replacing.

If you require them replaced.
If you require them to be replaced.
If you require us to replace them.
If you require replacing.

MrsGrey

What's ungrammatical about 'want'?

;puzzled

AdMeus_CaputFilius

Nothing, just changing words to see if it comes across better that's all (or more acceptable).

NEoldiron

AdMeus,
thanks for the effort, time and thought you put into your reply.
However, going back to my original post, what I really wanted to know was what, grammatically, is wrong with "......if you want them replacing"

grey_til_I_dye

NE

In spoken English, I'd say nothing.

From a mooch around the Interwebby, the suggestion is:

a) while some verbs can be followed by a gerund, the verb 'want' is normally followed by the infinitive (to play, to be replaced etc.)

b) contrary to my earlier response, 'replacing' here is being used as a gerund

so it is grammatically 'wrong' at the moment.

MrsGrey

;ok

Some verbs usually take a gerund in their normal form (I enjoy swimming) while others don't. (According to Swan's Practical English Usage, my go-to-grammar reference)

NEoldiron

So I think I've got this now ;biggrin

"....if you want them replacing" is grammatically wrong because the pronoun "them" which is the object of the verb "want" is being used as an adjective modifying the gerund (noun) "replacing".

Therefore to be grammatically correct either "them" has to be changed to "their" so that "replacing" now becomes the object (as MrsG. said a while back), or "replacing" has to be changed to "to be replaced" or possibly "replaced".

I think ;biggrin

MrsGrey

I wouldn't worry about it. I think the folks in the hotel were pretty clear about what to do with their towels. ;lol

thornburyiron

Isn't it just a question of chucking them in the bath or shower and they magically reappear later as good as new.

Bazshuayi

Sorry in advance (should be resisting). I want to be clear there's intention to patronize and no motivation to be rude or critical. It's just a pet hate

Their = Linked to someone or something/associated with. e.g. Their carpet. Their nose

They're = shortened from 'they are' It's descriptive e.g. They are or they're supporting West Ham

There = Describing a place or position e.g. Over there on the terraces. They stayed there for 90 minutes

IronHerb

Their you go. Youve got it off you're chest now. ;run