atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'

People in the 1810s probably made mistakes too. :)

________________________________

From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Frankham
Sent: Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:01 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'


"Less" instead of "fewer" used to get my goat as an example of the
degrading of the language, until I saw it in a novel from the 1810s.
 
Actually, it still annoys, but I feel less able to tell people it's
wrong.
 

-- 
Daniel Frankham 





________________________________

        From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
        Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:35 PM
        To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
        
        

        Add it onto the list for our evolving language, along with:

         

        Enormity (to denote size or complexity - showing my age, but I
have a dictionary at home where the only meaning is great wickedness.
Apparently, we're going full circle as centuries ago it used to mean
size - so I'm younger than that!!)

        Less (e.g. less people, instead of fewer)

        Lay, where lie should've been used (e.g. I was laying on the
beach...)

        'Should of' instead of should've or should have

        Compliment/complement...

        And a common error in docs I'm currently fixing is
principle/principal, where both meanings are used and pretty much each
time it's wrong.

         

        If it is a generational thing, I'd say it's rooted in the
diminution of reading.

         

        Cheers,

        Terry

Other related posts: