A light hearted view of common spelling mistakes, Which ones get yer goat? Options

[x2lls]

Looser, something that is ill fitting.
Loser, someone who fails to win.

[Andy Capp]

Not quite the same thing, but even BBC presenters cannot pronounce innovative properly. They use the Americanism: in-o-vay-tive instead of in-uh-vat-ive.

[On the edge]

Not quite the same thing, but even BBC presenters cannot pronounce innovative properly. They use the Americanism: in-o-vay-tive instead of in-uh-vat-ive.

Which is correct? As we have no 'English Acadamy' must be majority rule; so in-o-vay-tive is right.,

[Andy Capp]

Which is correct? As we have no 'English Acadamy' must be majority rule; so in-o-vay-tive is right.,

I'd say Received Pronunciation is as close as it gets, but there is no right or wrong, it is a style thing. in-o-vay-tive is new and a seemingly American way of saying it.

BTW - if we are to accept majority rule, then 'Eastenders' is the best thing on telly at Christmas.

[On the edge]

I'd say Received Pronunciation is as close as it gets, but there is no right or wrong, it is a style thing. in-o-vay-tive is new and a seemingly American way of saying it.

BTW - if we are to accept majority rule, then 'Eastenders' is the best thing on telly at Christmas.

What about Standard English? Received Pronunciation used by less than 5% of the population. One of the reasons 'English; has developed is its ability to evolve. Of course, there will be new words and idioms we don't like but we are not forced to use them. so there is a chance they'll go out of use.

What's wrong with Eastenders? Personally I don't like it, or others of its type, but that's a matter of personal choice. If we are to have a very expensive public service broadcaster, I'd much rather it delivered value to the mass audience, rather than have something imposed by those who think they are our betters!

[Andy Capp]

What about Standard English? Received Pronunciation used by less than 5% of the population. One of the reasons 'English; has developed is its ability to evolve. Of course, there will be new words and idioms we don't like but we are not forced to use them. so there is a chance they'll go out of use. What's wrong with Eastenders? Personally I don't like it, or others of its type, but that's a matter of personal choice. If we are to have a very expensive public service broadcaster, I'd much rather it delivered value to the mass audience, rather than have something imposed by those who think they are our betters!

Argumentative today, aren't we?

OK, the masses know best do they? EastEnders appeals to the lowest common denominator, and just like the media, serve to titillate all that is insidious in human nature. Sure, if that doesn't matter let's all go that way. If the majority think we should leave Europe, regardless of the technical merits and ignorance of the mass, let's all go that way, that sounds sensible (irony).

Most people do not have impeccable spelling, should we therefore default to that level? Personally, I'd rather a public broadcaster that can enlighten public awareness rather than have a race to the bottom.

[On the edge]

Argumentative today, aren't we?

OK, the masses know best do they? EastEnders appeals to the lowest common denominator, and just like the media, serve to titillate all that is insidious in human nature. Sure, if that doesn't matter let's all go that way. If the majority think we should leave Europe, regardless of the technical merits and ignorance of the mass, let's all go that way, that sounds sensible (irony).

Most people do not have impeccable spelling, should we therefore default to that level? Personally, I'd rather a public broadcaster that can enlighten public awareness rather than have a race to the bottom.

We certainly shouldn't default to lowest denominator, but then again we shouldn't pick up every single little nit that crops up. That's simply being pedantic and often an excuse to prevaricate. I am certainly no exemplar and don't claim to be. I've been picked up for bad spelling and usage only to discover that those criticising didn't actually know what they were talking about and had it wrong themselves. For instance, it is quite OK to start a sentence with and, also there is nothing really wrong with splitting infinitives. Absolutely fine when the meaning is in doubt but otherwise don't bother.

Eastenders appeals to a segment of the audience, in fact a majority. Who are you to set the standard? Regrettably the BBC has confused the role of public service broadcaster and provider of mass entertainment. That's why I firmly believe the BBC should be broken up. The commercial elements left to commercial stations. This would leave the BBC simply providing news and perhaps comment. We'd need to be very careful, having a State broadcaster charged with educating its audience might well suffer from the law of unintended consequences. There used to be a famous station in the east that did just that when the Soviet Union existed.

As for titillating all that is insidious in human nature; the Globe in Southwark still achieves that with Shakespeare - well worth a visit. They still let the likes of me and the great unwashed stand in the pit!

[Andy Capp]

We certainly shouldn't default to lowest denominator, but then again we shouldn't pick up every single little nit that crops up. That's simply being pedantic and often an excuse to prevaricate. I am certainly no exemplar and don't claim to be. I've been picked up for bad spelling and usage only to discover that those criticising didn't actually know what they were talking about and had it wrong themselves. For instance, it is quite OK to start a sentence with and, also there is nothing really wrong with splitting infinitives. Absolutely fine when the meaning is in doubt but otherwise don't bother.

Eastenders appeals to a segment of the audience, in fact a majority. Who are you to set the standard? Regrettably the BBC has confused the role of public service broadcaster and provider of mass entertainment. That's why I firmly believe the BBC should be broken up. The commercial elements left to commercial stations. This would leave the BBC simply providing news and perhaps comment. We'd need to be very careful, having a State broadcaster charged with educating its audience might well suffer from the law of unintended consequences. There used to be a famous station in the east that did just that when the Soviet Union existed.

As for titillating all that is insidious in human nature; the Globe in Southwark still achieves that with Shakespeare - well worth a visit. They still let the likes of me and the great unwashed stand in the pit!

I think you underestimate the ability that TV has to subvert behaviour in people, particularly the young and naive. Drawing analogy between Shakespeare's Globe and EastEnders is silly as is insinuating the alternative should be state controlled TV. I'm merely pointing out that popularity doesn't mean better.

[On the edge]

I think you underestimate the ability that TV has to subvert behaviour in people, particularly the young and naive. Drawing analogy between Shakespeare's Globe and EastEnders is silly as is insinuating the alternative should be state controlled TV. I'm merely pointing out that popularity doesn't mean better.

What is better then? That isn't a smart question, I'd really like to know. Soap Operas have been very popular for many years. EastEnders is written by a professional team and played by professional and very well paid actors. What's wrong with it? It isn't to my taste and certainly not to yours, but I can't see why you consider it base. The comparison with Shakespeare is very pertinent. He was creating the 'soaps' of the day and suffered from exactly the same criticism.

We can all call for more comedy / documentary / historic drama and so on, but the fact remains, one man's meat is another man's poison. The broadcaster will go for the most popular, of course, or he's out of business. Popular might not mean better but it doesn't mean bad either.

Turning to television and its ability to corrupt, I was just trying to point out that it does not need to be monopolised by a public service broadcaster. One of the alternatives is state control, the other is strict regulation. I worry more about the present set up, where the BBC has assumed the role of arbiter, the voice of reason and challenge. That is just as dangerous than the alternatives.

[Strafin]

The broadcaster will go for the most popular, of course, or he's out of business. Popular might not mean better but it doesn't mean bad either.

Noo they won't though will they because it's the "uniquely funded" BBC. Their remit is not to be popular, (not solely anyway), but to offer a wide range of everything to please all groups, no matter how large or small.

[On the edge]

Noo they won't though will they because it's the "uniquely funded" BBC. Their remit is not to be popular, (not solely anyway), but to offer a wide range of everything to please all groups, no matter how large or small.

Who defines how well they succeed? The Politicians. What are they driven by? popular acclaim.

[Andy Capp]

Who defines how well they succeed? The Politicians. What are they driven by? popular acclaim.

It is an independent board. My feelings about EastEnders are personal and are neither irrelevant, nor fact. I believe the analogy about Shakespeare and EastEnders being bogus is because they are different things. One was an outlet playing a wide variety of performances to thousands, the other is a particular story playing to millions. Other than that, I don't believe Shakespeare and his other writers always wrote well, but Shakespeare wrote some of the most recognisable and influential text in the history of story telling.

In my view, EastEnders is largely unrealistic, corny and unimaginative, but I believe that is true of most soaps these days: all battling for the same audience. The thing is, you seem to miss my point of my bringing the topic of EastEnders up. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I am simply illustrating what happens if you leave it up to the 'masses'. X Factor et al. is another example.

[On the edge]

It is an independent board. My feelings about EastEnders are personal and are neither irrelevant, nor fact. I believe the analogy about Shakespeare and EastEnders being bogus is because they are different things. One was an outlet playing a wide variety of performances to thousands, the other is a particular story playing to millions. Other than that, I don't believe Shakespeare and his other writers always wrote well, but Shakespeare wrote some of the most recognisable and influential text in the history of story telling.

In my view, EastEnders is largely unrealistic, corny and unimaginative, but I believe that is true of most soaps these days: all battling for the same audience. The thing is, you seem to miss my point of my bringing the topic of EastEnders up. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist, I am simply illustrating what happens if you leave it up to the 'masses'. X Factor et al. is another example.

The Tempest (say) and an episode of Eastenders are both exactly the same thing. A performance for entertainment. The difference is that one is contemporary and the other historic. If your point is that Eastenders is a result of what happens when things are 'left to the masses', there are far better analogies; the latest generation of talent show and all of reality TV, both of which are also exploiting weakness and so are offensive.

The 'masses' have no real say in what output they watch. That's up to the executive management of this 'independent board'. My argument against the BBC is that if this independent board was as free as you imply, in the light of its charter, how come it panders to the masses with what you consider bilge? Might just as well have state control and do away with the pretence.

[Andy Capp]

The Tempest (say) and an episode of Eastenders are both exactly the same thing. A performance for entertainment. The difference is that one is contemporary and the other historic.

Which one do you think will be remembered more in hundreds of years time?

The Tempest, while not wholly original, has inspired countless adaptations and taught in schools all over the world.

If your point is that Eastenders is a result of what happens when things are 'left to the masses', there are far better analogies; the latest generation of talent show and all of reality TV, both of which are also exploiting weakness and so are offensive.

Using your own argument, who are you to judge? Although from a technical point of view, I agree.

The 'masses' have no real say in what output they watch. That's up to the executive management of this 'independent board'. My argument against the BBC is that if this independent board was as free as you imply, in the light of its charter, how come it panders to the masses with what you consider bilge? Might just as well have state control and do away with the pretence.

Sorry, that is illogical and suggests you are missing my point. I never gave any opinion on the independence of the BBC, and I don't agree that we should hand the BBC over to the state. I haven't even said that EastEnders should be abolished, I simply said I think it is toilet and represents a poor influence on society.