Andy

I know that we are not supposed to be pedantic on this forum but if you are criticising somebody's grammar you should ensure that your spelling is up to the mark. 'Crutial' should be 'crucial'.

Thanks - my spelling has improved over the years, but occasionally I get it wrong. I could never spell 'scissors' correctly at primary school. I'm more concerned about people who don't even try to make an effort - the odd spelling nistake (!) is fine, its the taking words out of context or making them up (as others have said) because they don't know how to put their point of view across in English, mostly due to laziness.

More of a rant, after an idiot on the Telegraph comments forums kept on bleating about X or Y and my supposed lack of education after several lapses in his own grammar and spelling. I suppose its all pot, kettle and black for us.

Have a good weekend.

It is often reported that someone has been "pressurised" into doing something.

The correct term is pressured.

Pressurisation is what you do to a gas.

As a graduate in English Language and Literature I've been reading this thread with some interest.

It is very difficult to be dogmatic or "purist" about language. It changes constantly; it re-invents itself in response to the needs and whims of its users. It is perhaps an unpalatable fact to some, but if enough people use a particular word or phrase, that will become the accepted and therefore the "correct" version.

We can of course detect ignorant and slovenly (i.e. unthinking and language-poor) usage, but even examples of these, if enough people use them, will become "fixed".

Concrete is right about the versatility of English; it has flexibility and invites creativity - qualities that have allowed it to produce the greatest literature in the world. However, he's a little confused about word-order. Though we can certainly say, "London I am going to", it is distinctly odd and you have to invent a bizarre situation to justify its utterance - which includes being the Star Wars character Yoda, of course.

English syntax depends on word-order. The fictional headline "Dog eats man" is entirely different from "Man eats dog". Many other languages have words which change their endings (inflections) to indicate syntax. In Latin you can say "Canis comedit hominem", or "Hominem canis comedit", or "Comedit canis hominem", or "Hominem comedit canis". They are all correct and the meaning is the same, though the emphasis may be different. (I know Latin is a dead language, but I'm using it to illustrate a point.)

German is an inflected language, but there are also special rules about word order. French is more like English than German as regards inflection and word-order, but is still a quite heavily inflected language.

As for English being easy to learn, I'm not so sure. The pronunciation presents major challenges to the speakers of some languages. Likewise the grammar - my wife's first language is Polish (which is highly inflected), which does not have articles (i.e. the equivalent of "the" or "a"). Her English vocabulary is excellent, but unless she thinks about it, she omits articles. Though her meaning is clear it sounds very odd. ("I caught later bus today and missed train.")

English is full of what were once colourful idiomatic phrases which must seem distinctly weird, as they are untranslatable. E.g. "We must not beat around the bush." "That is the last straw."

Lastly, English vocabulary is vast. Aside from words that, in one form or another, have existed in English since the Middle Ages or even earlier, we have appropriated many words from other languages. "Barbecue" and "sauna", for some reason, spring instantly to mind.

These things, together with our history of empire and of trade, have conspired to make English the most widely spoken (though not necessarily as a first language) and most widely understood language in the world. For example, if a Russian wants to travel in mainland Europe he will learn English, unless he's only ever going to one country.

I'm pretty sure most of us don't appreciate how enormously privileged we are.

P.S. Having just posted this, I realise how long it is. I'm sorry - it's pet subject and I got carried away.

Edited by FP on 12/08/2015 at 20:05

You have reminded me of another one Focussed, why do Australians use "Don't" instead of "Haven't" ?

Who invented the horrible fashion of using "of" instead of "have"?

IE "I would of caught the bus" Rather than "I would have caught the bus"

It's not a fashion, it's happened for decades. Someone who writes 'of' is just writing what he hears, without thinking what the words mean. But most of us on here are better educated than that? :-)