One for Bitt, probably:

More and more recently, I've been seeing people writing 'that', when they mean 'than'. See today's example from the qmail mailing list:

Thanks for a better example than the one that popped into my head! Folks
who use various return addresses, but are forced by their ISP to use
in-domain envelopes, do the same thing--but that's less significant that
the mailing list traffic out there.

This paragraph uses both 'than' and 'that'.

My question: is this just an increasingly prevalent typo, or is there some dialect of the English language in which this is allowed, and of which I'm not aware?

I think the second 'that' should be a 'than'. It looks like a typo, I can't see how the two words could be mixed up - it'd read and sound very wrong.

That's what I thought, but I've been seeing it more and more. I guess spellcheckers are to blame -- they don't spot this, and people don't bother proof-reading what they type anymore.

That's what I thought, but I've been seeing it more and more. I guess spellcheckers are to blame -- they don't spot this, and people don't bother proof-reading what they type anymore.

And so more people read it, and assimilate it, and so, whether consciously or not, start using it in their own writing -- this being how language always evolves. Look at the whole "medieval" versus "medireview" story.

Peter

I make this typo all of the time. Fortunately I always triple-read posts/emails before submitting/sending them and I usually catch it, but it's one I make quite often. I'm not really sure why; I'm certainly not thinking the wrong word.

My guess is that, in at least that particular case, his fingers got stuck in a repeat loop, seeing that he had just typed ``that'' a few words prior. I can't come up with any way that that last clause works by using ``that'' -- not any way that I can fathom. And I think that's the end of that story.

his fingers got stuck in a repeat loop

I realize this isn't what you meant, but it makes sense that it's easier to repeat a "t" within the same word (not changing your hand position) than to move the right hand pointer finger down to hit the "n"; perhaps your hand just naturally wants to stay where it is and so repeats the "t" rather than the correct "n" even if you're thinking "n". My guess anyway.

Makes me think of the 'could of', 'should of', 'would of' thing that bugs the heck out of me when I see it.

Unfortunately it seems to be getting more common, so I think I am almost all bugged out of heck!

I think he means that your fingers type a certain pattern all the time, and your brain just sort of gets used to the idea. For example, I type my name a LOT, so when I start typing a word that FEELS like my name, sometimes my fingers just take over, offset by a leter or two on the keyboard.

Yeah, I realized that:

I realize this isn't what you meant

However, it did get me thinking about why certain things get mis-typed. If I had a dollar for everytime I typed "beign" instead of "begin" (since I program in Pascal I do this a lot) I'd be a rich man. I think the reason for a lot of my typing mistakes is the way the letters are layed out on the keyboard and patterns that are difficult for the fingers (if you're a touch typist).

It's funny how this extends to music as well. You get used to playing a certain riff, and when a similar one comes up in a different song, you flub it until you get used to the new song and your brain sets up two separate code pathways for them.

Yup, which is why we learn scales! I hated doing scales in marching band, but I have to admit (older and wiser and all) that it really did make me a better player. . . or would have if I'd actually learned them! They've certainly improved my guitar playing anyway.

Yeah, I realized that:

I realize this isn't what you meant

Sorry. I missed that. My brain just skipped happily over it.

It is weird how the brain works. When certain neural pathways are repeatedly accessed, the brain actually grows more pathways to it, making it easier and easier to access in the future. A very natural self-optimizing system. And a very very cool one.

ive also noticed the word 'loose' being used to replace 'lose'. now, i havent actually bothered to look it up, but im fairly certain they have two entirely different meanings. and i know theyre pronounced differently. but it seems everywhere i look 'loose' is used when 'lose' should be

You're right, loose and lose are two completely different words.

I suppose that could just be a typo too. But I doubt it. I think, in those cases, you're just seeing an example of poor grammar.

Have the grammar skills of the general public really declined sharply over the last ten years, or has the advent of the internet just allowed us to see a more realistic cross section of the public?

Side topic discussion, inspired by the thread title. Bitt Faulk, please feel free to jump in:

"That" vs. "Which" in a sentence. I never understood the subtle distinction.

"He did something that caused something else to happen."
"He did something which caused something else to happen."

One is grammatically correct, the other is not. I don't know which is, um, which.

I hate 'that' vs 'which' as I too have no idea when to use one or the other and will happily interchange them.

I'm probably annoying someone by doing it - the same way I get annoyed by 'loose' and 'lose' - thats just lazy IMHO.

"The wheel came loose"

"I win, you lose"

You're right, loose and lose are two completely different words.

I suppose that could just be a typo too. But I doubt it. I think, in those cases, you're just seeing an example of poor grammar.

I'd call it poor spelling rather than poor grammar; it's usually misused in contexts where it's clear they were trying to use the verb "lose" and just put too many letters in it. Neither looseness, nor the "loosing" of, say, hunting dogs, is usually at all related to what they were trying to say. The root cause of the problem might be that "loose" and "lose" are pronounced differently only in the consonant sound, but are spelt differently only in the vowel sound.

Have the grammar skills of the general public really declined sharply over the last ten years, or has the advent of the internet just allowed us to see a more realistic cross section of the public?

I'd vote for the latter, with the additional effect that the Internet, and computers in general, have led to far more people producing prose as part of their daily routine than ever before.

Peter

ive also noticed the word 'loose' being used to replace 'lose'

I am guilty of that one all the time. It is a spelling issue for me as I have never been able to remember which spelling corresponds to which word so I have to look up the definition to be sure. The other pair of words that gets me is 'where' vs 'were'. The strange thing is that in general I think my spelling and grammar is pretty decent, but there is something about those sets of words where the pronunciation is not evident from the spelling (at least to me) that seems to get me.

-Mike

[grammar_police]"...in general I think my spelling and grammar are pretty decent..."[/grammar_police]



-Zeke

i know my spelling is decent. but ive become a really lazy type over the years. i strain to type with capital letters and i often mispell words as im typing, and i dont bother to fix them. simple things like 'somethign' and 'w3rd' (heh)
but, ive also words that i made up to make my typing go quicker
prolly = probably
idno = i dont know
dint = didnt
theyre not really necessary, but i like to be full of myself and think that it sets me apart from everyone else. which, i guess it does. just not really in a good way.
and ive an insistence of putting periods, question marks, and exclamation points oustide of quotes, but only when its not included in the quote. if i were quoting someone that said 'holy cow!' then i would include the exclamation point inside the quotes. as opposed to : i saw someone get hit by a car the other day, and the lady standing next to me only said 'meh, serves him right'!
to me, it just looks better. but im fairly certain that it goes against everything i refused to listen to in school.
but what i cant stand are people that use 'loose' instead of 'lose'. not sure why, but its always really gotten under my skin.

and ive an insistence of putting periods, question marks, and exclamation points oustide of quotes, but only when its not included in the quote. if i were quoting someone that said 'holy cow!' then i would include the exclamation point inside the quotes. as opposed to : i saw someone get hit by a car the other day, and the lady standing next to me only said 'meh, serves him right'!

I'm with you on that one. It's called "logical quoting" and, while becoming more popular everywhere, is apparently particularly popular among geeks, because it's -- well, logical...

Peter

cool. theres a whole revolution going on, and here ive been fighting it on my own for so long.

thanks for the google link with the search term. i read this article and felt important because i related to alot of what was said.

Thanks for that link, it was an iteresting read. The quick references to earlier programming syntax were cool. Who was it who said indignantly 'Ma'am! I resemble that comment!'[sic]?

-Zeke

I tend to use both, depending on what I'm talking about. If I am quoting a password, user name, command, etc, I always leave the punctuation outside of the quotes so as to not confuse the reader.

Oh, and by the way, "alot" is not a word, it's two words: "a lot."

touche
but, ive an excuse
ill just blame it on my own style, which i already said may or may not be liked by other people
heh

I understand. Anyone who's talked to me via IM knows that I type completely different in that situation. It's just a "style" that I picked up from BBSs and IRC. In that situation all that really matters is that you get your point across.

exactly
this girl i talk to always corrects herself when she typos and then apologizes
i tell her to stop. theres no need, so long as the other person understands what shes trying to say. thats ok, shes still cool though.

[grammar_police]"...in general I think my spelling and grammar are pretty decent..."[/grammar_police]

Thank you for clarifying the difference between pretty decent and good

-Mike

"That" vs. "Which"

``that'' is used to introduce restrictive clauses, meaning ones that go to define the noun being modified.

``which'' is used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, meaning those that add additional information not necessarily required. In this context, ``which'' is always preceded by a comma.

``The computer that Jack administered crashed.''

``The computer, which Jack adminstered, crashed.''

The first sentence indicates specifically which computer crashed. The second adds additional information about the computer whose specific identity was apparently already established. Read them out loud, emphasizing the delay at the commas, and I think you'll hear the difference.

If you try to use ``that'' instead of ``which'', it sounds wrong and doesn't convey the right meaning, to my ear, at least. However, using ``which'' instead of ``that'' sounds fine. Supposedly, technically, it isn't, but it's well established and I don't think that you'll find anybody who's going to correct you on it. ``Which'' even sounds better in certain contexts, especially when ``that'' is already in use in the phrase it introduces. I think that the big thing is using the commas. That really identifies how the phrase is being used more than the introductory word, and I think that, at least in speech, most folks have that one down.

Thank you! I shall now use these words like they should be!

I shall now use these words like they should be!

Or better yet, use these words as they should be.



tanstaafl.

Thank you, Bitt. I think that clarifies it for me. Now I hope it'll sink in.

Who says the police are never around when you need them?

Um Bitt... lets get them all done in the same thread;

'as' and 'like'

I shall use these words like they are intended.

I shall use these words as they are/were intended.

Which is correct (if any), and when is one word used over the other?

'as' and 'like'

The issue is whether or not ``like'' can be used as a conjunction.

The grammar nazi will claim that ``like'' is to be used as a preposition and ``as'' is to be used as a conjunction. Thus:

``Spanish is like Portuguese.''
but

``Spanish is as Portuguese is.''

The difference being that in the second sentence, ``as'' is being used as a conjunction combining the indewpendent clauses ``Spanish is'' and ``Portuguese is''. In the first sentence, ``like'' is used as a preposition, the same construct as ``Spanish is near Portuguese,'' or ``Spanish is around Portuguese.'' (Note that even though those examples are gramatically correct, they don't make a lot of sense. Cf. ``Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.'')

I think that this is an arbitrary rule that someone came up with a couple of hundred years ago and it got passed on for no good reason. Supposedly, their use has been documented both ways as far back as the 14th century, which is easily at the beginning of modern English. Use whichever sounds better. I doubt you'll find any dictionary that doesn't claim that both are both prepositions and conjunctions.

'as' and 'like'

Strunk & White have the following to say:

Like governs nouns and pronouns; before phrases and clauses the equivalent word is as.

So, the correct answer is: "I shall use these words as they are/were intended."

Oddly enough, the same thing I said (well, about the technical point, anyway), only much, much, more succinct. E.B. White a better writer than me? Never!

Oddly enough, the same thing I said

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing -- you beat me to the reply. It's just that I had a copy of Strunk and White sitting here next to the PC (who doesn't? ), so I thought I'd check what they had to say.

Really, I just meant to point out White's amazing clarity with language -- one that I could never hope to emulate.

Words and Expressions Commonly Misused by Insipid Brothers-in-law: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/11/10diclaudio.html/