It is now a grammatical error to make reference to any natural death without prefixing the clause with the word "sadly".
It is also incorrect to speak of an accidental or criminal death without an announcement that the friends and relations are in our minds at this distressing time.
Both usages were originally optional and depended on circumstance. That is no longer the case, they are now obligatory and consequently meaningless. Not conforming is on a par with saying "him went out" or appearing on live UK TV in early November without a poppy.
The most recent rules of Grammar
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2020 2:56 pm
by Snooz
Thoughts and prayers.
The most recent rules of Grammar
Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:30 am
by AnneBoleyn
Snooz;1532241 wrote: Thoughts and prayers.
Exactly what I was thinking!
Re: The most recent rules of Grammar
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:50 am
by spot
The current generation seems incapable of meaning what it says or saying what it means.
I know, for example, what something is if it is credible. I can give credence to it. It is within the realm of possibility rather than fable. It is possible. I would not be surprised if it turned out to be fact.
I also know how to invert those meanings. If a thing is not possible, if it cannot be the truth, if it does not belong in the realm of reality, then it is incredible, it is fabulous, it is unbelievable. The entire import of those words is that thing being discussed is a lie, that it cannot be true.
The current generation, by contrast, uses all three of these words (incredible, fabulous, unbelievable) as synonymous with “I am pleased”. They discard three entirely useful words from their dictionary in order to be able to say “I am pleased” in a confused and disorderly fashion. Why they choose to do this I have no idea, I find their reason unimaginable. That they are doing this so carelessly is destructive and I can think of no excuse at all.
Neither do I know why they have destroyed “unimaginable” and “unthinkable”. No police officer or politician of yore would have sunk to using those words in reference to grief, pleasure or policy. These days it’s obligatory. No police statement to the press can refer to grief unless it is unimaginable. Every political claim that an option is unthinkable is merely a refusal to allow the option to be discussed.
None of this tawdry disguise should be tolerated. I insist we return to plainer, more honest, speech.
And as for the police it's never their job to refer to grief anyway, regardless of how far they claim their imagination might extend. Perhaps they could usefully look up "platitude".