Speaking Of Language...

[TarJak]

Delectable delights of discourse! Great site Steve.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Spiced_Rum

I can recommend 'Eats, Shoots & Leaves' by Lynne Truss, the zero tolerance approach to punctuation. Explains grammar rules, and use of punctuation.

That's something I need to work on. I've forgotten so much of what I learned, and I'm sure my proper punctuations have decreased over the years.

[kranz]

Got minus 0,5 point for the example below today. I don't want to start a separate thread or bother people with PMs so maybe someone could give it a shot here:

the context: write a report on company's condition etc...doesn't really matter, the staff were given a survey...it doesn't matter. One of the points (tell me please which one is correct)

A) The staff stated that the company does not....
B) The staff stated that the company did not....

[Sailor Steve]

I think both are correct, but if the statement is about the current condition then "does not" would be more appropriate. "Did not" represents the past tense, but "The staff stated" is also past tense, so "Did not" seems like a good choice. The real question is not whether the staff stated it yesterday or five minutes ago, but whether the company's intent is current or past. "Did not" could be taken mean that they didn't intend whatever yesterday, but will tomorrow. "Does not" is definitive: The company does not intend ever to do whatever it is.

Both are correct, but "does not" is better.

At least that's my opinion.

[edit] To make that jumble easier to understand, just look at it with contractions:

1. The staff stated that the company doesn't...

2. The staff stated that the company didn't...

You can see how the second one can be understood more than one way.

[Wolferz]

Whoa!!!
Corporate double speak from the sound of it.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think both are correct, but if the statement is about the current condition then "does not" would be more appropriate. "Did not" represents the past tense, but "The staff stated" is also past tense, so "Did not" seems like a good choice. The real question is not whether the staff stated it yesterday or five minutes ago, but whether the company's intent is current or past. "Did not" could be taken mean that they didn't intend whatever yesterday, but will tomorrow. "Does not" is definitive: The company does not intend ever to do whatever it is.

Both are correct, but "does not" is better.

At least that's my opinion.

Thanks, that's exactly how I understand it.
The whole report was about staff who were supposed to say what was/is wrong with the company's condition.
The full sentence was:
The staff stated that the company does not facilitate self-development of the employees.
The teacher underlined -ed in stated, crossed out does and put did above.
The grammar question is: can the Present Simple be used after the Past Simple in that case? The more natural option would be Past Simple+Past Simple but I've read somewhere that the former is also acceptable for ongoing processes/currents states etc. (Hewings, Advanced Grammar in Use)

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I think both are correct, but if the statement is about the current condition then "does not" would be more appropriate. "Did not" represents the past tense, but "The staff stated" is also past tense, so "Did not" seems like a good choice. The real question is not whether the staff stated it yesterday or five minutes ago, but whether the company's intent is current or past. "Did not" could be taken mean that they didn't intend whatever yesterday, but will tomorrow. "Does not" is definitive: The company does not intend ever to do whatever it is.

Both are correct, but "does not" is better.

At least that's my opinion.

[edit] To make that jumble easier to understand, just look at it with contractions:

1. The staff stated that the company doesn't...

2. The staff stated that the company didn't...

You can see how the second one can be understood more than one way.

I do agree, but I wouldn't say that describing the current condition would cover any future intention, as in this case it would be more correct to say the company doesn't (covering both present and past) and won't....(covering the future).

Originally Posted by kranz

Thanks, that's exactly how I understand it.
The whole report was about staff who were supposed to say what was/is wrong with the company's condition.
The full sentence was:
The staff stated that the company does not facilitate self-development of the employees.
The teacher underlined -ed in stated, crossed out does and put did above.
The grammar question is: can the Present Simple be used after the Past Simple in that case? The more natural option would be Past Simple+Past Simple but I've read somewhere that the former is also acceptable for ongoing processes/currents states etc. (Hewings, Advanced Grammar in Use)

You can also see this example as an indirect quote. At the moment the survey was taken, the employees said (directly): "The company does not facilitate self-developement". So in this case, using Simple Past and Simple Present is necessary to avoid a misunderstanding- at least in my use as a stupid foreigner )
As Steve pointed out: didn't would be misleading, as it could mean that the employees said :"They didn't facilitate... (untill last year. Now they do)".

Hey that's a nice thread, let's hijack it as a resource for us English learners!

[Penguin]

Here's some other uninteresting stuff I bookmarked:

Mentalfloss is a great site, which quite often has some articles on language, words or grammar. Some examples:
11 Weirdly Spelled Words—And How They Got That Way
From Y'all To Youse, 8 English Ways to Make "You" Plural
19 Confounding Discrepancies Between American English and British English

Some alternatives to outfox subsim's word filter - some words look a lil cheesy and outdated though this gives them a special charm :
141 Alternative Ways to Cuss Politely

And what you always wanted to know about the word "curmudgeon" (who wouldn't?) Hail Curmudgeon Day!

[Wolferz]

BOB SAGET! works well in mixed company.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Here's some other uninteresting stuff I bookmarked:

Some good stuff there!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

BOB SAGET! works well in mixed company.

It took me a minute to get what you were trying to say. I have lots of those. When I was a sailor I prided myself on the number of curses I could string together in one sentence. Nowadays I pride myself on being able to string together sentences of insults without swearing at all.

So don't mess with me, you rum-running, egg-stealing, slime-swilling, two-timing, name-dropping, mud-racing, freight-hauling, coat-turning, banjo-picking, chance-taking, course-changing, back-stabbing, pragmatic prognosticator! I mean it, Bob Saget!

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So don't mess with me, you rum-running, egg-stealing, slime-swilling, two-timing, name-dropping, mud-racing, freight-hauling, coat-turning, banjo-picking, chance-taking, course-changing, back-stabbing, pragmatic prognosticator! I mean it, Bob Saget!

You forgot "nerf-herding."

[Sailor Steve]

Who's scruffy-looking?

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Who's scruffy-looking?

I am. but i'm no nerf herder.
You son of a Siberian stack of water buckets.

Frau K likes scoundrels and good kisses.

[Catfish]

A Koala walks into a bar ..
He demands a meal, then makes love to the waitress, shoots the owner and walks out of the bar.

Someone yells at him "Hey you can't do that !"
But he answers: "Of course i can. I am a Koala ! Look it up in the Encyclopdia Britannica" !"
And the man reads : "Koala. Eats roots, shoots and leaves."

So the Koala imagined a comma after 'eats', with a tragic outcome .. but of course the entire point for using correct grammar is nil, since Koalas cannot really read.