on the way out; ends and outs of the case

[hhtt21]

"Lil Lary was able to talk to Akil on the way out, about the ends and outs of the case."

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=cyT4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&dq=a+motion+of+discovery+to+disclose+everything+"akil"&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGvfKgx7_bAhUCiywKHZ-cBhcQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=a%20motion%20of%20discovery%20to%20disclose%20everything%20"akil"&f=false

Here I'm having a little trouble with "on the way out". Would you please explain it?

 

[emsr2d2]

Your link leads to this:



Your excerpt does not appear there. The main reason I clicked on it was because I've never heard of "ends and outs", only "ins and outs", so I wanted to check that's what it said. Please post the correct link.

 

[hhtt21]

Your link leads to this:

View attachment 2871

Your excerpt does not appear there. The main reason I clicked on it was because I've never heard of "ends and outs", only "ins and outs", so I wanted to check that's what it said. Please post the correct link.

When I click my link, something strange happens. It first seems to appear then a small box appears containing your pic but then if you click on it again it widens. At least it is so for me.

 

[hhtt21]

"The courtroom dispersed quietly -----" and "Lil Larry was able to talk to Akil on the way out".

Do you think there is a connection here, hhtt21? It sort of sounds like everyone is leaving the courtroom and going into the corridor, i.e. on their way out of the courtroom.

"ends and outs" is wrong. It should be "ins and outs". This essentially means all the details of the case.

I don't know if it is wrong or correct I added what is written there.

 

[hhtt21]

How can a novel author make such a mistake?

 

[emsr2d2]

How can a novel author make such a mistake?

Quite easily. These days, anyone can write a book. It doesn't mean they're good at grammar or spelling. Self-publishing means they might not even have a proofreader or an editor. I Googled the book in question and looked at the opening page (the acknowledgements). The writer has used "Your effort did not go in vein". That's an error - it should be "in vain". He wrote "father in law" instead of "father-in-law". On the same page, he writes "My Cuz Shawn you were like a big brother from showing the ins and outs". That sentence contains capitalisation, punctuation and grammar errors (although at least he got "ins and outs" right that time!)

I would not recommend using this book as an example of good English.

 

[hhtt21]

Quite easily. These days, anyone can write a book. It doesn't mean they're good at grammar or spelling. Self-publishing means they might not even have a proofreader or an editor. I Googled the book in question and looked at the opening page (the acknowledgements). The writer has used "Your effort did not go in vein". That's an error - it should be "in vain". He wrote "father in law" instead of "father-in-law". On the same page, he writes "My Cuz Shawn you were like a big brother from showing the ins and outs". That sentence contains capitalisation, punctuation and grammar errors (although at least he got "ins and outs" right that time!)

I would not recommend using this book as an example of good English.

But what I mean to say is that a Turkish author would never do such mistakes. They might do different kinds such as punctuaction but not writing words in a wrong way. Turkish is written in the same way as read. If a Turkish learn to read, they can read everything. Are such mistakes done by English-speaking authors for that English is a very complex spelling so that even authors cannot learn them completely?

 

[emsr2d2]

I can assure you that plenty of native English speakers can't spell properly. :-( It's not a phonetic language.

 

[hhtt21]

I can assure you that plenty of native English speakers can't spell properly. :-( It's not a phonetic language.

What do you mean by a "phonetic language" here? I know from difference sources that English has a complex spelling. In the famous movie, The English Patient, the officers tell his name but the person doesn't understand him. He wants the officer to spell his name then a fight starts. I think this scene of movie reflects the reality.

Look at the part "Could you spell your name" in the link. As you will see, the person cannot write what he hears.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_English_Patient

 

[emsr2d2]

A phonetic language is one in which each word is written exactly how it sounds. English doesn't work like that. For example, take the words "through" and "threw". They are pronounced the same. Neither one really makes sense phonetically. If English was a phonetic language, both words would probably be written "throo".

The spelling of names is notoriously difficult. The British barrister and MP Norman St John-Stevas would have had a nightmare when giving his name aloud because it's pronounced "Norman Sinjuhn Stevuhs".

Click here and scroll down to "Surnames" for some more examples of baffling spelling/pronunciation issues.

 

[SoothingDave]

And yes, people who speak English often confuse what they think they hear with what was actually said. There's even a term for it now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

 

[hhtt21]

And yes, people who speak English often confuse what they think they hear with what was actually said. There's even a term for it now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

Does this cause communication problems in everyday life?

 

[SoothingDave]

Not generally. These are understood phrases in conversation that people have no idea how to write correctly.

 

[hhtt21]

And yes, people who speak English often confuse what they think they hear with what was actually said. There's even a term for it now

Not generally. These are understood phrases in conversation that people have no idea how to write correctly.

But If they confuse what they think they hear with what was actually said, isn't this about communication instead of writing? If they they confuse what they think they hear with what was actually said, ​would this not be about replying?

P.S: I might be misunderstanding what you are saying here.

 

[emsr2d2]

I can think of three issues that could be at play.

1. If someone mishears something, then they will write the wrong word (ie, not the word that was said but the word they thought they heard). That's not a spelling error unless they spell the word they thought they heard wrong too!
2. If someone doesn't know how to spell something, they will guess at the spelling. This goes for normal, everyday words as well as words they might not hear very often, such as people's surnames.
3. If someone has been using the incorrect spelling for a long time, it's hard for them to change. (One of my friends insists on writing "wierd", instead of "weird". It's not because she is stubbornly following the usual "i before e except after c" rule. It's that she misspelled it as a child, no one corrected her and it is now so ingrained that she spells it that way every time.

 

[SoothingDave]

Here's an example: many, many native speakers write things like "I should of called you." What they mean is "I should've called you."

Those two things sound the same. They say and hear them all the time with no confusion. But write them wrong.

 

[SoothingDave]

Another: I have an engineer (non-native, but very good with English) who hears "up and running" as "up in running." He understands the idea. Just the particular phrase as we use it escapes him.

When said in normal speech, both sound the same.

 

[GoesStation]

Common expressions sometimes change over time, too. For example, in recent years many people have started saying and writing things like it was the first time I'd ever stepped foot in the place instead of the once-universal set foot. Apparently they think of a foot as something you step with, so the new collocation seems natural.