More better grammer and speeling please.

[Ben@Forest]

Radio 4 is entertainment for those who consider themselves a little bit above the uneducated rabble - "I heard such and such on Radio 4. Now I'm well-informed". But in the end it's a game. The game being smart highly paid interviewer trying to catch out evil politician by asking them unanswerable questions.

A bit off-topic, but you’ve surely noticed how politicians try to avoid answering awkward questions. If it’s a game, both sides are playing it. I don’t know who started.

It's sometimes referred to as 'gotcha journalism' and that term, at least, has been around since the 1990s. Matt Bai, chief political correspondent for The New York Times defined it as such:

"By the 1990s, the cardinal objective of all political journalism had shifted from a focus on agendas to a focus on narrow notions of character, from illuminating worldviews to exposing falsehoods. If post-Hart political journalism had a motto, it would be: 'We know you're a fraud somehow. Our job is to prove it.' "..

(Hart was Gary Hart the presidential candidate)

[661-Pete]

IMO one concern for somewhere like a cycling forum is the extent to which people may be deterred from posting.

Deterred in which way? Both ways, I reckon. Some spelling/grammar pedants might be put off by what they see as the 'illiteracy' of many posts on a forum, some of which are, indeed, indecipherable. But others, those whose grasp of written English isn't that hot, may be deterred by seeing too precise and accurate usage on the same forum. No-win situation, I think!

To learn how to write really bad English, some might, I suppose, turn to the Molesworth series (as any fule kno). But that's meant for comic effect of course. On the other hand, there's a bit of writing in the public domain that's (or at least, so I think) the utter nadir of terrible English - and I don't know whether it's intentional or not. Many of you will have heard of My Immortal: how many have actually read it through? (I gave up after a couple of chapters).

[Phileas]

Radio 4 is entertainment for those who consider themselves a little bit above the uneducated rabble - "I heard such and such on Radio 4. Now I'm well-informed". But in the end it's a game. The game being smart highly paid interviewer trying to catch out evil politician by asking them unanswerable questions.

A bit off-topic, but you’ve surely noticed how politicians try to avoid answering awkward questions. If it’s a game, both sides are playing it. I don’t know who started.

It's sometimes referred to as 'gotcha journalism'

I’m sure it is but that doesn’t mean politicians are innocent.

[thirdcrank]

... Deterred in which way? ...

I meant that somebody with the technical knowledge, experience etc., which would have the potential to be a valuable addition to the pool of knowledge of a specialist eg cycling forum might be put off by the fear of people sneering at their poor grammar and spelling.

[Ben@Forest]

It's sometimes referred to as 'gotcha journalism'

I’m sure it is but that doesn’t mean politicians are innocent.

Absolutely not, but if the culture of journalism has changed to 'catch politicians out' it might mean we are less prepared to see the best in politics and only prepared to believe the worst.

It's not political but years ago I saw a local north-east TV interview with Jamie Bell - the star of Billy Elliot - at the time the film came out. The journo asked a few questions about the film and then about what Bell intended to do now. The answer was illuminating, Bell said ' Well I had wanted to be a journalist but now I see what you do, I don't now'. The journo looked suitably rueful.

[Phileas]

It's sometimes referred to as 'gotcha journalism'

I’m sure it is but that doesn’t mean politicians are innocent.

Absolutely not, but if the culture of journalism has changed to 'catch politicians out' it might mean we are less prepared to see the best in politics and only prepared to believe the worst.

Perhaps the politicians changed first.

[mikeymo]

"data is" well actually it should be "data are". But that horse has probably bolted. So now "data" just means - "some stuff we know".

ugh, no. 'data are', 'these data' and the like simply don't work well in english.

Chris Whitty said "these data" on the television last night.

Good enough for me.

[Stevek76]

Yes, it's been the desperate attempt of certain academic sectors to cling on to their poorly logicked usage of it that I've found rather grating of late. It seems to have intensified since this was published:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/s ... 14/00512/2

'Correct' language is defined by usage.

Also I note on the slides 'Further details on data sources can be found here', that would be a very ugly sentence with a regular plural, and at 32.07 on the no10 youtube vid:

so we are confident from these data that the ... the effectiveness of this vaccine in older people in reducing hospitalisations is greater than 75%. The exact number will change as the data comes in but this....

So not only does he cause himself to stumble, probably from concentrating on trying to use it as a countable plural, he then immediately uses it as an uncountable plural in the singular form in the next sentence. This is exactly what I was saying before. It's such an ugly and unnatural usage that even the most ardent of proponents can't actually stick to it when talking. From a descriptivist perspective, use of it as a plural is simply bad grammar.

[mikeymo]

Yes, it's been the desperate attempt of certain academic sectors to cling on to their poorly logicked usage of it that I've found rather grating of late. It seems to have intensified since this was published:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/s ... 14/00512/2

'Correct' language is defined by usage.

Also I note on the slides 'Further details on data sources can be found here', that would be a very ugly sentence with a regular plural, and at 32.07 on the no10 youtube vid:

so we are confident from these data that the ... the effectiveness of this vaccine in older people in reducing hospitalisations is greater than 75%. The exact number will change as the data comes in but this....

So not only does he cause himself to stumble, probably from concentrating on trying to use it as a countable plural, he then immediately uses it as an uncountable plural in the singular form in the next sentence. This is exactly what I was saying before. It's such an ugly and unnatural usage that even the most ardent of proponents can't actually stick to it when talking. From a descriptivist perspective, use of it as a plural is simply bad grammar.

He should be sacked, and somebody who speaks more consistently given his job.

[[XAP]Bob]

"data is" well actually it should be "data are". But that horse has probably bolted. So now "data" just means - "some stuff we know".

ugh, no. 'data are', 'these data' and the like simply don't work well in english.

Chris Whitty said "these data" on the television last night.

Good enough for me.

Was he talking about multiple sets of data, at which point you need a 'super-plural'.

What do you say if you have one sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep? sheep.
What do you say if you have 50 of one breed and 50 of another? 100 sheep doesn't quite convert the information, you need a super plural again, same with fish...

[Jdsk]

What do you say if you have one sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep? sheep.
What do you say if you have 50 of one breed and 50 of another?

"I have a hundred sheep."

Jonathan

[sjs]

What do you say if you have one sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep? sheep.
What do you say if you have 50 of one breed and 50 of another?

"I have a hundred sheep."

Jonathan

And posh animals, especially when spoken of by posh people, are always singular. "Look over there at those buffalo" etc.

[Paulatic]

What do you say if you have one sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep? sheep.
What do you say if you have 50 of one breed and 50 of another?

"I have a hundred sheep."

Jonathan

In Scotland we would say you’ve got 5 score of sheep.

[PDQ Mobile]

What do you say if you have one sheep, two sheep, a hundred sheep? sheep.
What do you say if you have 50 of one breed and 50 of another?

"I have a hundred sheep."

Jonathan

In Scotland we would say you’ve got 5 score of sheep.

The Welsh language does have a plural for sheep.
Defaid (pl) and Dafad.

One often hears an old farmer, using English, refer to the "sheeps".

I find it charming.
And it performs the correct function!

[Jdsk]

The English language has a plural for sheep. It's sheep. It's not that there's no plural, it's that the plural has the same form as the singular.

Jonathan