FAO TEFLers, proof readers and English speakers

[ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ]

Does "Maths" count as one or two mistakes?

Would you rather that they used ‘Math’?
I used ‘Maths’ all the way through my school career - the subject was never called Mathematics.

[pedros]

Damn I didn't even spot the capital M for maths (maths is fine, only yanks say math).

The smoke break is correct.

[ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ]

Damn I didn't even spot the capital M for maths (maths is fine, only yanks say math).

The smoke break is correct.

So Maths shouldn’t be capitalised? Then given that, I assume English also shouldn’t be capitalised given that it refers to the subject and not the nationality?

I would probably have capitalised Maths and English - but then I don’t work in the TEFL sector. I can only aspire to those levels.

[pedros]

Damn I didn't even spot the capital M for maths (maths is fine, only yanks say math).

The smoke break is correct.

So Maths shouldn’t be capitalised? Then given that, I assume English also shouldn’t be capitalised given that it refers to the subject and not the nationality?

I would probably have capitalised Maths and English - but then I don’t work in the TEFL sector. I can only aspire to those levels.

English is a proper noun, it is the nationality and language of the people from England.

[kansaicanuck]

I know it’s maybe not technically wrong but ‘quarter to’ in stead of ‘a quarter to’ sounds clumsy and unnatural.

If we waiting for someone to pick us up at 8 O'clock and we both know it's around 8 o'clock and you ask me the time, I would say " quarter to". Answering "a quarter to" sounds clumsy to me if it were 7:45.

[Playboy]

Damn I didn't even spot the capital M for maths (maths is fine, only yanks say math).

The smoke break is correct.

Plus when people say 'Math(s)' they are usually referring to arithmetic and not mathematics

#PetPeeve

[ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ]

I know it’s maybe not technically wrong but ‘quarter to’ in stead of ‘a quarter to’ sounds clumsy and unnatural.

If we waiting for someone to pick us up at 8 O'clock and we both know it's around 8 o'clock and you ask me the time, I would say " quarter to". Answering "a quarter to" sounds clumsy to me if it were 7:45.

TBH that whole post from you sounds clumsy and unnatural.

[kansaicanuck]

I know it’s maybe not technically wrong but ‘quarter to’ in stead of ‘a quarter to’ sounds clumsy and unnatural.

If we waiting for someone to pick us up at 8 O'clock and we both know it's around 8 o'clock and you ask me the time, I would say " quarter to". Answering "a quarter to" sounds clumsy to me if it were 7:45.

TBH that whole post from you sounds clumsy and unnatural.

Its quite hard to express myself with interpretive pantomime online.

[epidemiks]

I'd add an a, usually. It's without the a sounds awkward to me. Similar to the American way of not saying and after hundreds, "Three thousand, two hundred twenty" vs. "Three thousand, two hundred and twenty"

What's the time?
*looks at watch* Quarter to two.
*looks at watch* A quarter to two.
*looks at watch* It's a quarter to two.
*looks at watch* It's quarter to two.

Maths is correct British/Australian English.

Also, if we're talking improper capitalisation, Science at the bottom.

[violet]

Never said 'a' quarter to in NZ. It's quarter to

[Lucky Lucan]

I'd add an a, usually. It's without the a sounds awkward to me. Similar to the American way of not saying and after hundreds, "Three thousand, two hundred twenty" vs. "Three thousand, two hundred and twenty"

I've always thought using "a" was more correct, but could be dropped in fast answers. It might just be an American English/ Real English type of thing, like "math/ maths". As long as the text is consistent in using one or the other I don't think that's important. The times are the real screw up to me - having a shower before getting up, the two lunches, the mysterious smoke break etc. That's going to confuse the fuck out of a lot of kids, when you're young you tend to believe that stuff printed in officially-approved books is going to be correct.

[violet]

I have had no knowledge of this book before today, I'm as critical as the next guy, but something I have come to appreciate is that sometimes people are doing the best they can in difficult circumstances, such as being pressured by others to meet a deadline that simply can't be met if a job is to be done thoroughly. Some won't feel comfortable pushing back, and some won't be listened to when they do push back/feed back. Proofreaders and editors will know that work needs to be read through more than a couple of times to pick up all mistakes.
So, don't necessarily shoot the people doing the grunt work. .... Of course, there's also the matter of realising reputation is your bread and butter in a competitive and rapidly changing marketplace. Work up front saves money in the end.

[Lucky Lucan]

They have a large enough budget to be able to produce a competent text. I doubt very much that it was prepared by any grunt, it's more likely it was someone in a high position in the ministry whose English is pretty rusty but doesn't like to be contradicted. It's pretty disgraceful having an officially approved educational text that has so many errors.

[reflexline]

What is more concerning than the mistakes is what is missing from the text.