Grrr....just saw this again. Drives me nuts!

@big soft moose - how would you apply the he/him rule to 'whoever' or 'whomever?' "Hever," or "Himever" doesn't quite make it. Would you just remove the 'ever' and work with that?

Give it to whoever (or whomever) turns up? Still can't quite make that work with the he, him trick. I know you're supposed to use 'whom' after a preposition, but does this apply to 'whomever' as well?

Back to Bristol?

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_61.htm

 

I've had this explained to me on here and grammar website more times than I care to mention, and it still hasn't sunk in. It's one of those rules which (that?) simply refuses to stay with me, no matter how many times it's explained.

 

Yeah, it's taken time to sink in to me as well, but I have to make a conscious effort to apply it. I even went through some of my chapters in my novel, flagging up each instance of the word and trying to figure out if I've used it correctly or not. Still an ongoing project. And people wonder why I haven't published yet!

I think the correct word is 'that' in your sentence there, because if you take the clause out, the sentence doesn't say what you meant it to say. "Which" is only used when you are simply giving additional information. In the above instance, you weren't saying it's one of those rules. You were trying to say these particular rules don't stick with you. So I think the correct choice is 'that.'

You'd use 'which' if you were saying: It's one of those rules, which we learned in primary school, that refuses to stay with me, no matter how many times it's explained.

You could take that 'which' clause completely out, and the sentence would still carry its original meaning.

It's a puzzlement, though. I really have to work on each instance.

 

Okay, that's not coming naturally to me yet, but I'll work on it. I still don't quite geddit. He is most qualified. He turns up. I'm not quite getting the difference. Aaack.... The only difference that jumps out at me is the preposition in the second instance.

 

I say we should petition to bring back thorn (Þ) as a letter of the alphabet to replace 'th.' Pretty much the only reason it got dropped as a letter in the English language was because of the limitations of printing presses at the time, but now we're not hampered by that burden. Plus, it looks cool and would simplify at least a little of the wonky in our language.

 

So in my sentence: 'It's one of those rules which (that?) simply refuses to stay with me, no matter how many times it's explained.' which part is the clause?

 

You see this is the problem for people like me. You've probably gathered, given how quickly I'm posting this relative to you posting the link, that I haven't studied the guide at any length, but I started reading and this weird blindness comes over me. I read the words, but nothing makes sense. I have a real problem following written instructions.

I know that some things require a slightly more complex explanation, but I need the rule explained to me in the simplest and shortest method possible. First off, I don't even know what a 'clause' is, so it starts pecking with my head right away.

[edit] Oops, didn't see your edit.

So, if the sentence requires a clause it's 'that', otherwise it's 'which' ?

Why can't the guides just say this, instead of rambling on for a whole web page??

 

I think the main issue people may have with lose/loose is because of choose/chose.

Choose and lose make the same end sounds, so I think people instinctively associate the "oose" spelling as denoting that sound.

I know the correct spellings of the words, but every now and again I spot I've subconsciously typed the wrong word even though I consciously know better.

But then I used to be an abysmal speller—it might just be a carry-over.

I found in high school that recognising languages of origin helps me know which spellings make sense. I was reading a lot of Hugo & Dumas and a bit of Leroux when I started recognising the patterns of French spellings and being able to identify that this word is spelt this way because it's French in origin. Same with Greek words and German words.

I find @Seven Crowns post fascinating and am glad to know all that.

And while I was notorious for the worst spelling till junior high or high school, I am actually with @jannert that while mistakes are inevitable, corrections ought to be sought & learnt.

For instance, I personally prefer spelt, spoilt, spilt, dreamt, etc., to spelled, spoiled, spilled, and dreamed (etc.).

I feel that I should be able to use past in place of passed by the same token. I feel it very strongly and irrationally.

However, I know it's wrong and so I have to make sure I check my impulses.

Also, someone recently told me I might even be using the irregular "t" past tenses inaccurately regardless, and now I'm going to have to figure out if I need to clean up another bad habit. . .

 

Please explain.

 

That's an excellent point about the Anglo Saxon 'e' added to change a noun into a verb. Seems to work in many instances, as your post illustrates.

 

I'm not sure. It was a short conversation and I need to check the accuracy of the assertion, but I believe the gist of it was that "ed" is past tense while "t" is past participle.

So "I burned the toast" and "I have burnt the toast" are correct, but my saying "I burnt my toast" is wrong.

 

Mmm, I'm not sure on those either. Great!

So:

"What happened to your breakfast of eggs on toast?"
"Burnt the toast."

Is wrong?

But I don't get why. If one burns their toast, whether they're saying it while stood looking at the smoking charcoled squares on the grill, or whether they're talking about yesterday's breakfast, they're still referring to a past event.

 

Kay, I actually did some research on this. Apparently burned and burnt are the same thing. Adding a 't' to a word to make a past participle is a Germanic tradition that was carried over into Anglo-Saxon. 'ed' is kind of an offshoot of that. However recent convention puts burned as a past tense, while burnt is more frequently used as an adverb. So technically if you burned the toast, then you'd have burnt toast.

 

I knew the Germanic origins. And I assumed they were the same, just my usage is archaic for America.

So I thought my choice for the "t" endings was appropriate, if unusual.

So am I allowed to say "I dreamt last night" instead of dreamed?

Because I definitely say dreamt. And dwelt and knelt and learnt.

 

Doing those all by how they sounded to my ear I only got this one wrong:

 

Yep. I belted through that test ...and got that one wrong as well. It just sounds wrong to the ear, doesn't it? But it's not. The blank word is the object, not the subject of that sentence.

I found the 'preposition' test is a good one, but certainly not the only one, as in instances like this. It's been so long since I actually studied grammar, I've been relying on my ear to tell me what's right and what's not. And my ear can get it wrong. I'll be more careful and mindful from now on.

 

As far as my limited knowledge goes these are considered old-fashioned terms, but still okay grammatically speaking.

 

I got all but #3 correct. That'll do for me.

 

I do think that's an incredibly good website, but I can't find where they do the which/that one. I'm surprised it got left out, because it's a common one that practice would certainly help.

 

We might include "lie" and "lay." Dishonest people annoy me when they say they're laying but are really lying.
However, I appreciate my fellow Americans who never studied English, if they don't intend to visit England.