mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I know what Oxford Dictionaries say, but they just reflect changing usage. Even when it's crap, and plainly wrong. Similar to, different from. No need for "than" at all. BTW, data are plural. Edited September 12, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I know what Oxford Dictionaries say, but they just reflect changing usage. Even when it's crap, and plainly wrong. Similar to, different from. No need for "than" at all. Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 I accept that language changes. What I consider "correct" may not have been correct 100 years ago. Nonetheless, I'm sticking with the way I was taught, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frobisher Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 True, I didn't consider that (data). I was never taught either way, but I prefer the sound of "none were", and, as it is perfectly acceptable, will continue to use it. Unless I am writing to a traditional grammarian. As an aside, when discussing grammar/spelling/punctuation, I get extremely paranoid that I am breaking every rule ever codified! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 I think the "data" example is a lost cause, and I can see a case for now treating it not as a plural Latin noun, but a singular English one. But it's nice to know the Latin derivation. I did five years of Latin at school; hated it at the time, but I'm glad I did it now. It really helps in understanding English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I did five years of Latin at school; hated it at the time, but I'm glad I did it now. It really helps in understanding English. I'm thinking of taking it. Advisable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Txt spk iz the way fwd, innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frobisher Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I wish I had that schooling. I'm sure I would have detested it at the time, but what a solid basis for language learning it would have given me. I'm from a lost generation where grammar seemed to be, on the whole, ignored at school, and I still struggle with it to this day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I wish I had that schooling. I'm sure I would have detested it at the time, but what a solid basis for language learning it would have given me. I'm from a lost generation where grammar seemed to be, on the whole, ignored at school, and I still struggle with it to this day. Your posts, compared to many others on here, suggest otherwise Sir. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 I did five years of Latin at school; hated it at the time, but I'm glad I did it now. It really helps in understanding English. I'm thinking of taking it. Advisable? Hmmm. Dunno. If you enjoy language learning generally, maybe. Even better if you happen to be interested in the literature of the Classical era (not many people are these days). As an historian and a literature lover, I'd rather like to be able to read Pliny, Virgil, Caesar, Tacitus, etc. in the original. But my Latin is not up to it, and I'm not willing to commit the time at this stage of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I did five years of Latin at school; hated it at the time, but I'm glad I did it now. It really helps in understanding English. I'm thinking of taking it. Advisable? Hmmm. Dunno. If you enjoy language learning generally, maybe. Even better if you happen to be interested in the literature of the Classical era (not many people are these days). As an historian and a literature lover, I'd rather like to be able to read Pliny, Virgil, Caesar, Tacitus, etc. in the original. But my Latin is not up to it, and I'm not willing to commit the time at this stage of my life. For me, it's not really about appreciating literature, it's about gaining a better understanding of English (and European languages), and it's also about gaining the ability to assess primary sources that are written in Latin yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 12, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted September 12, 2013 Well if there's a course on offer, you could try it. Most people seem to find the "dead language" aspect puts them off. The "roots of English words" aspect I find fascinating, but it's hardly essential for modern life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frobisher Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I wish I had that schooling. I'm sure I would have detested it at the time, but what a solid basis for language learning it would have given me. I'm from a lost generation where grammar seemed to be, on the whole, ignored at school, and I still struggle with it to this day. Your posts, compared to many others on here, suggest otherwise Sir. That is kind of you to say so. I tried to return your thumbs up, but it doesn't seem to be available on the app (which is superb and I have rated in the Play store). Oh, while typing this message, I think I figured it out: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I accept that language changes. What I consider "correct" may not have been correct 100 years ago. Nonetheless, I'm sticking with the way I was taught, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. The pieces are there, someone just needs to put them together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Latin is interesting. I wanted to do it at GCSE but the teacher retired. It doesn't get taught outside private schools & Universities in this day and age. Handy if you are interested in the Romance languages and how they developed, or if you are keen on Classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Latin is interesting. I wanted to do it at GCSE but the teacher retired. It doesn't get taught outside private schools & Universities in this day and age. Handy if you are interested in the Romance languages and how they developed, or if you are keen on Classics. Hard? Harder than, say, French? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 "None" is a shortened form of "not one". Not one of the of the footballers was able to score a goal yesterday. Interesting. The other one reads right and yet isn't. Some would do well to be humble and actually learn something on here from time to time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Latin is interesting. I wanted to do it at GCSE but the teacher retired. It doesn't get taught outside private schools & Universities in this day and age. Handy if you are interested in the Romance languages and how they developed, or if you are keen on Classics. Hard? Harder than, say, French? I found it easier, but it is hard to say. If I had it my way, I'd want kids to have a year of studying Latin before studying French or Spanish. It gives you a basic understanding of how a language works, which is invaluable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Thanks. I ask because I took French for 3 years (well, 2 years, I didn't attend class much in my third year ) and I hated it - partly because I found it hard, and partly because I didn't see the point in learning it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I'd rather learn Spanish, more useful around the world. Edited September 12, 2013 by AVFCforever1991 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts