atw: Re: 'that' vs 'who'
- From: "Kathy Bowman" <Kathy.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:13:29 +1030
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:
