One for the Grammar Nazis..

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by Bravo_Bravo, Aug 3, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Look forward to..
    Look forwards to..

    Does it really matter?
     
  2. Look forward........


    it can't be a plural, can it?
     
  3. look forward to, (you could have looks forward to though)
     
  4. It is incorrect grammar to say “forwards.” Grammar dictionaries agree that these words do not exist, and are no more than misspellings of the word. The addition of the extra S is only a recent phenomenon. Forwards is not an acceptable substitute for Forward.
     
  5. My copy of the COD says: 'forward adv. (also forwards) . . .' I understand the round brackets to indicate that forwards is an acceptable variant.
     
  6. For me, "look forward to" is invariable. "Forwards" is fine, but only in the physical sense of forwards instead of backwards. The Grammar Nazi's Grammar Nazi has to be H. W. Fowler, and he pronounces on the matter here: A Dictionary of Modern English Usage ... - Google Books
     
  7. Fang_Farrier

    Fang_Farrier LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    I look forward to.
    You look forward to
    He looks forward to.
    They were looking forward to.
    I was looking forward to.

    In my grammar fascism state, as "forward" is an adverb, it does not change, the verb "look" does.

    Though on checking my trusty Chambers's dictionary (printed 1952) it does say that forward, forwards, are both acceptable to use as an adverb.

    So not a recent addition to english language.
     
  8. Doesn't change in mine either. One of the great things about English (as opposed to French and German, for instance) is that adjectives and adverbs don't change. But I think the question is more about whether the word "forwards" can be used with "look," assuming you're happy for it to be used in contexts like "the truck moved forwards."
     
  9. Since writing and editing is now my job, I'm confronted with this sort of question all day. As I haven't memorized any grammar books, I generally rely on the (wildly optimistic?) theory that most native speakers get most things right most of the time. So I Google the two options and see what's more frequent. In this case, if you Google "look forward to" site:.uk you get 14.8 million hits. If you do "look forwards to" site:.uk you only get 42,500. So unless 14 million people on UK sites are all wrong ...

    Of course, this isn't so helpful if both options get a similar score, but nothing's perfect.

    The reason for adding the site:.uk is to eliminate non-native-speaking sites. The fact that it also eliminates a whole bunch of native-speaking ones is just too bad.
     
  10. Look forward.

    What gets me is; "Should of" !

    There is no such thing as "should of" it is actually , "should have".


    I stand to be corrected, but i'm right.
     
  11. It is "should have". As in "Big_Rob should have been drowned at birth".

    As for the "look forward" thing, can't you just say "It's going to be ace!".
     
  12. Fixed that for you. Well as far as my pish poor gramar(is that a double 'm'?) goes.
     
  13. Whet should HAVE got a job years ago.

    Just a thought.
     
  14. Gremlin

    Gremlin LE Good Egg (charities)

    In which case you forgot:

    One looks forward to

    I'm not even going to mention the Chambers howler!

    :razz:
     
  15. I think "should've" gets confuddled with '"should of"!