literal sentence interpretation

Post Reply New Topic

I had this idea the other night when replying to someone's question and they misused the proper "to", "too" and "two".

For example, "where are you heading off too?"

I'd take that to mean, "where are you heading off also?"

It would be like a syntax error on your computer - it can't proceed unless it understands.

Another example would be, "They're dogs are over their"

that means, "They are dogs over his and/or or hers"

I misuse that all the time because I'm dyslexic & I always get it confused a lot. I have no problems understanding the context in someone's sentence

"You know what I meant!" is a statement often used by people who have had their grammatical errors questioned. I don't mind (most) errors, but contrary to what people who make such errors believe, I am often sincerely confused by grammatical errors. I can usually figure out what the person means to say if I sit and think about it, but sometimes I am rendered completely baffled by something which might be considered a very minor error.

I may be a literal thinker but I don't see those literal images in my head. To me they are just mispelled.

I know there are people out there that have a mighty hard time understanding a sentence when a word is mispelled. For example "str8t" for straight. Some people will get confused by what they were reading and have to focus hard on what to understand what they are reading. I think those people call it "literal reading" because while they don't take things literal nor think literal, they take reading literal when it comes to text talking or misuse of words like "to" two" and "they're" so they have a hard time understanding what they are reading. I learned this at Babycenter when some women said they have this issue.

I hate people who are are too ignorant to get there, they're and their right.
Not to mention your, you're and yore.

But look at the English novels from 100 years ago. They would ask negative questions like "Would you not like to go for a walk?" If you say yes does that mean yes I would or yes I wouldn't?

Then there are the words "should" and "shall". Thank god they are almost extinct.

"I should like to go for a walk"
Does that mean that you want to go for a walk or that you ought to want to do it but you really don't?

Last edited by Wombat on 01 Feb 2011, 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think perhaps it means that the speaker would probably like it. And I like this use of "should." ^_^

In "proper" English there are complex rules about the use of should, shall, will, would etc.

German is a relative nightmare. There are two different way of addressing other people. The formal and the intimate.
This in turn changes all the verbs and parts of speech.

English used to be like that. That is why the old Bible uses the words "thou" and "thine".

That was the "intimate" way of addressing people instead of "you" and "yours".

I know, but thank you for sharing.

For me, all parts of the speech depend on the context. As long as the meaning is clear, I do not care. The problem is that modern-day people don't seem to have much of a grasp on that, clearly demonstrated by the appaling text-speak they have created.

I hate all grammatical errors, but I understand that some people can't help but make them, and I realize that, at one point, I was more ignorant to English than most people are today. That said, my brain developed a routinely to automatically correct typographical and grammatical errors on sight and translate them into correct form. Time ago, a former friend drilled this function into my head.