Grammarants

[Seaviewer]

It's been annoying me lately that the perfectly acceptable aphorism "If you can see her, you can be her" has been distorted into "If you can't see her, you can't be her", which is manifestly untrue.
If it was really not possible to do anything unless you'd seen someone else do it first, no one would ever do anything.

 

[Seaviewer]

Which is correct?

Three patients are on a respirator
or
Three patients are on respirators
?

The trouble is they both sound wrong to me - the former sounds like they are sharing one respirator while the latter sounds like each of them is on multiple respirators - but one of them must be right.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Three patients are on respirator?

 

[bmasters9]

Which is correct?

Three patients are on a respirator
or
Three patients are on respirators
?

The trouble is they both sound wrong to me - the former sounds like they are sharing one respirator while the latter sounds like each of them is on multiple respirators - but one of them must be right.

I think the latter is more correct, because it would imply that respirators are being used, but also that each patient is on one of them-- no sharing, but only one respirator per patient.

 

[Angela Channing]

Which is correct?

Three patients are on a respirator
or
Three patients are on respirators
?

The trouble is they both sound wrong to me - the former sounds like they are sharing one respirator while the latter sounds like each of them is on multiple respirators - but one of them must be right.

This is an interesting question and I think the reason why both sentences sound correct and wrong at the same time is because conflicting rules of grammar are in play. I suspect both are correct although maybe the second sentence may be more correct. Let me explain.

If a patient on a respirator is thought of as being a complete unit (which is a perfectly reasonable way to view the situation) then the plural of "patient on a respirator" is patients on a respirator. However, if the patient and the respirator area thought of as being 2 separate units (which is also perfectly reasonable) then the plural is "patients on respirators".

Part of the difficulty is that most people are not familiar with respirators so they are not able to make assumptions that they would with other nouns. For example, if I said "3 patients have a donor heart", you would assume they all have one donated heart each and if I said "3 patients have donor hearts", you would still assume they all have one donated heart each because we already know that people would only need one heart.

By contrast, if I said "3 men are on a horse", you would think there are 3 men on a single horse but if I said "3 men are on horses" you would think they were each on their own individual horse, i.e. 3 horses in total, and not 3 horses each because we know you can't be on more than one horse at a time.

When people are more familiar with the item being discussed, the sentence is clear to them because their prior knowledge fills in the gaps.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I think in this particular case the purpose of the unit/device is more important than the device itself, because it informs about the condition of the patient.

Three patients are on respirator?

What I actually meant was: three patients are on respiration, and in written language - say, if I wrote a soapy novel about an evil matriarch who was almost smothered to death by her daughter's diabolical boyfriend - I would write artificial respiration.
And of course it's self-explanatory that they use respirators for the respiration.

 

[Daniel Avery]

I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, so I have no idea of what respirators are like. I assume it's a self-contained machine, one patient per unit. But a larger intensive care unit might have a built-in, multi-patient unit that can help multiple patients at once. If that machine were to actually exist, then "three patients were on a respirator" would be correct. But if each patient gets his or her own, then "three patients were on respirators" is closest to perfect.

And if you wrote "Three patients were on life support" it would sound perfectly acceptable because "life support" is a catch-all term that could mean any number of machine types, and perhaps multiple machines at once. If the respirator detail was not absolutely necessary, you could just generalize to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[Willie Oleson]

so I have no idea of what respirators are like

Would all three patients artificially breathe in exactly the same tempo? All hooked up to the same big pump like a bunch of body snatchers or other evil sci-fi creatures waiting to be wakened to destroy life on earth?
Think, people, think.

 

[Crimson]

I'm about to be unpopular in this thread by taking the dissenting opinion. I used to be judgmental about others' grammar and spelling, and harsh on myself for errors. A few months back, I came across a linguist on TikTok (of all places) who essentially presented that the 'finer points' of language are irrelevant. My immediate reaction to that was hostile, but the longer it seeped in my brain the more I accepted it -- and it's nice to know I'm not so set in my ways that, when presented with new information, I can't change my mind.

Language's purpose is communication; if a point is understood, obsessing about 'proper' spelling or grammar is just persnickety snobbery.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Autocorrect is the unintentional instigator in this. You can be reading along, everything making perfect sense when all of a sudden, one word makes everything seem nonsensical. So we get more and more accustomed to random words not "meshing" with what is being said, but we overcome those moments of confusion...even turning it into a game to see what word was really intended (versus what word ended up on the page or in the text). Soon we become experts at determining what the other person meant as opposed to what they wrote...

 

[Crimson]

Autocorrect is the unintentional instigator in this. You can be reading along, everything making perfect sense when all of a sudden, one word makes everything seem nonsensical.

An incorrectly used word, whether due to a technological snafu or a plan ol' mistake, can be a road bump in communication since it can fundamentally change the meaning of a sentence. That's not really the same as someone being fussy about spelling or grammar; a person would have to be deliberately obtuse to not understand a sentence because the wrong homophone (there/their/they're) was used.

I don't know about other languages, but English is plain weird -- cobbled together through centuries of evolving usage. The 'rules' are capricious and arbitrary, so I don't see any point in being a stickler for them.

 

[Angela Channing]

Although I agree that communication is the primary aim of language and grammatical conventions are secondary, that doesn't mean grammar is not important. Often grammar exists to make a sentence easier to understand such as the recently discussed "three patients are on a respirator or three patients are on respirators" scenario. It's by using correct grammar that enables language to be more clearly understood and less open to ambiguity.

For example, imagine at Falcon Crest, Meliss wrote this note to Lance:

"I want a man who knows what love is all about. You are generous, kind, thoughtful. People who are like Chase admit to being wicked like Angela. You have ruined me for other men. I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart. I can be forever happy. Will you let me be yours? - Melissa."

Using @Crimson's flow chart, because the sentence makes sense, Lance would proceed to "YES, carry on". However, this is what Melissa actually meant when she used commas and full stops correctly:

"I want a man who knows what love is. All about you are generous, kind, thoughtful people, who are like Chase. Admit to being wicked like Angela. You have ruined me. For other men, I yearn. For you, I have no feelings whatsoever. When we’re apart, I can be forever happy. Will you let me be? Yours, Melissa."

Correct grammar leads to correct understanding. This is an extreme example but it shows how correct grammar is not just about being pedantic but about being understood.

 

[Daniel Avery]

I think of proper grammar in the same way I think of good manners. Manners are essentially an agreed-upon set of rules of behavior whose goal is to put others at ease.
Grammar is a set of agreed-upon rules of communication (writing, speaking) whose goal is to make communication easier and clearer.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Language's purpose is communication

How about poetry?

if a point is understood, obsessing about 'proper' spelling or grammar is just persnickety snobbery

It's not very cool to correct other people's spelling/grammar mistakes but there's a difference between a genuine mistake and the mangling of language for trendy or "anything goes!" reasons, as pointed out in the very first post of this thread.
It's happening in my own language, too. Not that we can expect everyone to aim for perfection but sometimes it feels as if language sloppiness is being embraced instead of being frowned upon.

the wrong homophone (there/their/they're) was used

Now that's one thing I don't understand. Each word has a completely different meaning and to me it looks like writing "table" when you mean "chair".

such as the recently discussed "three patients are on a respirator or three patients are on respirators" scenario. It's by using correct grammar that enables language to be more clearly understood and less open to ambiguity.

Context is everything. If a reporter-on-location describes the aftermath of a tragedy - say, a mining accident - then the mention of the respirator(s) only serves to indicate the severity of said aftermath.
But if the patient vs. respirator is part of the plot - say, starting a joke with "three patients are on a respirator" you know, like, "three men walked into a bar" - then the technical set-up should be clear from the very start.

If it's meant to be understood that each patient is hooked up to a seperate respirator device, but when this is not as self-explanatory as your horse and donor heart examples, then perhaps it can be clarified by adding the word "respective"?

I yearn for you. I have no feelings whatsoever when we’re apart

Isn't "to yearn for" and "having no feelings" a contradiction?

 

[Crimson]

How about poetry?

Still a form of communication, no?

there's a difference between a genuine mistake and the mangling of language for trendy or "anything goes!" reasons, as pointed out in the very first post of this thread.

Language is elastic. Much of what you consider proper wouldn't have been at some point in the past; "trendy" was a slangy addition to the language in the mid-60s and someone probably groused about it.

I'm not pro-sloppy language, but I've also come to find out that, far more often than not, it just doesn't matter that much. I don't know a person under 30 who uses capitalization or punctuation in casual communication (text, IM). On extremely rare occasions this might be confusing -- not sure if they're asking or telling me something, sometimes -- but usually it's easy enough to understand.

Few things make someone seem as curmudgeonly as complaining about how other people write/talk. There are too many variables to expect conformity -- regional, generational, expediency. It's like sniggering at someone for using the wrong fork to eat a salad.

Now that's one thing I don't understand. Each word has a completely different meaning and to me it looks like writing "table" when you mean "chair".

Many people communicate verbally far more than in writing, and they do after all sound the same. For years, I couldn't understand why people would write "could of" until it finally occurred to me that they were mis-hearing "could've".

 

[Willie Oleson]

Still a form of communication, no?

I'm not sure. If it's meant to be enjoyed then doesn't it exist for the sake of poetry? Does there always have to be a message in music, paintings etc?

Language is elastic

Yes, and dictionaries get updated from time to time.

I don't know a person under 30 who uses capitalization or punctuation in casual communication (text, IM). On extremely rare occasions this might be confusing -- not sure if they're asking or telling me something, sometimes -- but usually it's easy enough to understand.

But that's the thing: why should it be easy enough ?
Why should we accept the impoverishment of communication, unless there's a profit in it that I haven't been informed about?

Many people communicate verbally far more than in writing, and they do after all sound the same

I don't understand this reasoning. Their/there/they're should conjure up three completely different things when putting it in text. There is no sound on this forum (I think?)

I couldn't understand why people would write "could of" until it finally occurred to me that they were mis-hearing "could've".

But...what about school? Don't they teach children how to write anymore?
What's next, becoming more casual about mathematics? 2 + 3 = 5 but now we can say four-ish?

 

[Crimson]

Why should we accept the impoverishment of communication

Look on the bright side: you'll be dead before the impoverishment of communication is complete.

 

[Seaviewer]

we become experts at determining what the other person meant as opposed to what they wrote...

As you might have guessed, I do love semantics. But I do realise that it's often pointless to try to correct people when their meaning is easily discernible.

Language is elastic. Much of what you consider proper wouldn't have been at some point in the past;

I also realise that the language is always evolving; it's just that the process is painful to watch sometimes.

Many people communicate verbally far more than in writing, and they do after all sound the same. For years, I couldn't understand why people would write "could of" until it finally occurred to me that they were mis-hearing "could've".

Sadly, I do also hear people quite clearly saying "could of."

 

[Willie Oleson]

it's often pointless to try to correct people

I only correct misspellings of KRYSTLE and PETER DE VILBIS (and sometimes MORELL)

 

[Angela Channing]

Which is correct: judgement or judgment?

After I made this gif for the soap World Cup of Cliffhangers I questioned whether I had gotten the spelling correct.

Initially, I was sure I was right but I did wonder whether JUDGEMENT was the British English spelling and JUDGMENT was the American English version. So I did a Google search and it's more confusing than I thought.

In British English both versions are correct depending on the context. In legal documents the correct spelling is without the e (e.g. the judgment of the court is that the defendant is guilty) but in other documents it is more common to spell it with an e (e.g. I try not to make judgements about other people based on their clothes).

In American English, the judgment is the accepted spelling in all circumstances.

I sometimes wonder how anyone learns English as a second language!