I'd love to know what annoys others.
I'd love to know what annoys others.
grammar nazis?
I'd love to know what annoys others.
grammar nazis?
:P Failure to capitalise noted and ignored.
I'm not referring to casual language, by the way. I don't have a problem with that. It's using the completely wrong word, one that doesn't even mean what you intend, that gets my goat.
I'd love to know what annoys others. Just so I can put my little peeve into perspective.
And I know this isn't related to grammar, but it does start with the mouth: The sound of people chewing. (sorry, I have nowhere else to say this)
I know somebody who spells "think" as "thank" even though I explained to them that it is incorrect...can't teach an old dog new tricks,
Ha Ha! Yeah. There allways tellen us how to speak write when their never write they're selves. Their should be a place we can send alot of them for help.I'd love to know what annoys others.
grammar nazis?
It bothers me when people mix up there/their/they're, or two/to/too, or you're/your.
If you have a problem with "alot", check out this comic:
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.ca/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html)
Incorrect use of their, there, and they're, holy shit.
Also multiple exclamation marks at the end of a sentence, these are the two things that keep me awake at night.
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
You want to "lose" weight, not "loose" weight (this one really drives me up the wall).Yes! This one is so much easier than desert/dessert!
...so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
...so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
Sooth: Noun meaning truth (archaic)
Soothe: Verb (with object) meaning gently calm (a person or their feelings)
So, sheepstache, I am confused. Was that your point? Were you just being funny? Or did you not take time to read your own comment? I just can't tell.
Did I miss it or did we completely overlook irregardless?
Just curious, how many people were taught the subjunctive mood and how many still use it? (If I were rich vs If I was rich)
I notice as time goes by and I have fewer people to converse with that were taught this manner of speech, it's disappearing from my conversations. Sometimes I hear myself and then think ooooh, where did THAT come from?
I've also read that there was never any basis in the language for subjunctive mood, but that it was introduced in some fancy school in England in the 19th century as a shibboleth to identify who did or didn't have proper breeding, schooling, etc. there is something to say about language evolution if words can be bred IN for the exclusive purpose of selective exclusion. But I guess that's where all slang starts too?
Improper use of reflexive pronouns.
And I know this isn't related to grammar, but it does start with the mouth: The sound of people chewing. (sorry, I have nowhere else to say this)
Just curious, how many people were taught the subjunctive mood and how many still use it? (If I were rich vs If I was rich)
I notice as time goes by and I have fewer people to converse with that were taught this manner of speech, it's disappearing from my conversations. Sometimes I hear myself and then think ooooh, where did THAT come from?
I've also read that there was never any basis in the language for subjunctive mood, but that it was introduced in some fancy school in England in the 19th century as a shibboleth to identify who did or didn't have proper breeding, schooling, etc. there is something to say about language evolution if words can be bred IN for the exclusive purpose of selective exclusion. But I guess that's where all slang starts too?
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
I think that might be a southern thing. I used to hear that all the time in the South, but I don't hear it too much in the mid-Atlantic region.You want to "lose" weight, not "loose" weight (this one really drives me up the wall).Yes! This one is so much easier than desert/dessert!
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
I really like the subtleties of great words, so it kind of bothers me when so many people misuse the words that the meaning/hidden meanings/ shibboleths are lost. I used to love the word gourmand, but now so many people use it incorrectly that it seems to have lost its meaning. I liked being smug and judgemental in using that word. I also really hate that the new "standard" thanks to spell-check for spelling is Judgmental vs. judgemental. Also Advisor vs. Adviser. The word "advisor" is part of my company name and I can no longer include it in a document without the squiggly red line under it. Thanks Microsoft!
Don't you mean somebody's won? or maybe somebodies won? Or maybe some buddy won? :-)...so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
Sooth: Noun meaning truth (archaic)
Soothe: Verb (with object) meaning gently calm (a person or their feelings)
So, sheepstache, I am confused. Was that your point? Were you just being funny? Or did you not take time to read your own comment? I just can't tell.
Yay, somebody won!
Okay getting back to grammar: it irks me when I see a mixing up of the subject & direct object forms. It's 'between you an ME' goddammit! Just because 'I' sounds fancy doesn't make it grammatically correct when referring to one's self as a direct object. Hint: use me. No, no no, don't use ME, use the word 'me'. Shit, see? This is how I get myself into trouble.
I thought both versions were acceptable (advisor vs adviser)? Either way you can right click the word and add it to the dictionary in microsoft word so it won't think you've misspelled it.I think they are both acceptable, but one is more prevalent here in the US and the other in the UK. At the time I chose my company name, I chose the one that was common in the US (and also the only one I had ever even known). Now, less than 10 years later, and Microsoft calls attention to the fact that it doesn't like it. I can change it in my dictionary, but when I send correspondence to my clients, their dictionaries probably don't include my spelling. I have a lot of scientists and engineers as clients and contrary to what one finds on MMM, they're often not great with language AND they are judgemental -- very quick to think someone else is the nincompoop because Microsoft says so (no offense meant to you guys who are masters of language).
I am also confused by the italicized part. What do you mean the new standard? It's always been judgmental as far as I know.Hmmm. Maybe I just remember it differently. I thought this was also UK vs. US. I wouldn't pronounce that word the same way without the "e". I haven't been willing to give up that extra "e", but maybe I'll rethink that.
My dad chews very loudly. The sheer volume of it has annoyed me since as far back as I can remember. In the last decade I realized I'm just like him. It sucks. When I chew, my mouth is closed and I'm not trying to be loud. So when other people are near I chew slower. That seems to soften it. Alone, I don't care. I just chew.
Does this make you like me less Cheddar Stacker? I'd understand if it did.
My dad chews very loudly. The sheer volume of it has annoyed me since as far back as I can remember. In the last decade I realized I'm just like him. It sucks. When I chew, my mouth is closed and I'm not trying to be loud. So when other people are near I chew slower. That seems to soften it. Alone, I don't care. I just chew.
Does this make you like me less Cheddar Stacker? I'd understand if it did.
Walla instead of viola!Uh it is voila
Walla instead of viola!Uh it is voila
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
I have my grammar nazi grandmother to thank for my twitches about this one:
Incorrect: "The reason is because...." It is redundant. The word reason implies because.
Correct: "The reason is that..."
Wait, where I come from it's jool-ry. Two syllables. Dialect thing? I'm also driven nuts by family pronounced with three syllables.
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
I have my grammar nazi grandmother to thank for my twitches about this one:
Incorrect: "The reason is because...." It is redundant. The word reason implies because.
Correct: "The reason is that..."
Ha ha, yeah, stuff like that bugs me but doesn't make me mad, because I know it only bugs me because I happen to know the correct way but it's not something I expect everyone to pick up from everyday vernacular.
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
Jewellers sell jewellery. Jewelry is just bad old American English.
Yeah, sheepstache, that's pretty much how I say it too unless I'm trying to make a point that if a third syllable is added, put it in the right place to represent tits actual spelling.Wait, where I come from it's jool-ry. Two syllables. Dialect thing? I'm also driven nuts by family pronounced with three syllables.
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
I think that might be a southern thing. I used to hear that all the time in the South, but I don't hear it too much in the mid-Atlantic region.
One more pronunciation type of thing: Jewelry is pronounced as it's written. It is not Jool-a-ry. It's Ju-El-Ree. This seems so common now.
Jewellers sell jewellery. Jewelry is just bad old American English.
I was prepared for a shaming, but I'm sticking to my guns and following Grammarist.com's explanation. One "L" is preferred in today's American English.
to represent tits actual spelling.
to represent tits actual spelling.
I wouldn't normally snicker at typos on a forum, but in this thread they seem particularly funny.
It's been said that Shakespeare would be furious at what we have done to the English language since his time.And some people say that Shakespeare was just a pen name
Conversely, future generations are going to end up with a version of English that is nothing like what we are all complaining about (quite legitimately imo).
In the end, it's an evolving beast.
I thought it breast not to mention it, since they're obviously trying so hard.
"I did good." <-- Oh really? Were you Mother Theresa or a boy scout? You mean, 'did well'?
"Today's special: Pancake's" <-- Oh, you bloody greengrocers' apostrophe! How I hate thee. (Ironically, there are huge debates about where to put the apostrophe in "greengrocers' apostrophe".)
It's like when I type the word third. I just can't get my fingers to do it right when I'm going fast, so it's spelled t-h-r-i-d-[backspace]-[backspace]-[backspace]-i-r-d.
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
I think that might be a southern thing. I used to hear that all the time in the South, but I don't hear it too much in the mid-Atlantic region.
I first heard Scottish friends say it (needs done, needs fixed, needs murdered etc.), but I do hear it occasionally from other people these days and I suspect I have said it myself. I like it. It has a ring of brisk practicality to me. :) I have yet to see it written, aside from the above.
P.S. Was it a faux pas to use :) in a grammar thread?
Surprised no one has hit on this one yet, maybe I missed it. For me, it's the improper use of the word Nazi. Absolutely nothing compares to the Nazis, and yet all sorts of people casually refer to grammar nazis, soup nazis, feminazis, fill-in-your-nazis as if the comparison is in order. I used to as well until someone set me straight.
Surprised no one has hit on this one yet, maybe I missed it. For me, it's the improper use of the word Nazi. Absolutely nothing compares to the Nazis, and yet all sorts of people casually refer to grammar nazis, soup nazis, feminazis, fill-in-your-nazis as if the comparison is in order. I used to as well until someone set me straight.
I'd love to know what annoys others. Just so I can put my little peeve into perspective.
Grammar Nazis (unless you're reading my PhD dissertation) are up there with the sub woofer in my neighbors apt :)
Oh! I've got two new ones! People who say "dash" when they mean "hyphen" (they're different things), and those who say "quotes" when they mean "quotations".
(Actually, I don't care about either... I'm just having a go at Grid!) :-)
As an offender of grammatical errors, I apologize. I wish I could keep all the errors straight. In my defense in middle school I went to my English Teacher and asked for help (at a public school). She refused to help me or even get me a tutor to help me with it saying she didn't understand what I was having trouble with. Granted I should have went to my parents and sought help elsewhere but at the time I took that to mean it did not matter. While going through College I did learn a bit more and have straightened out some to a degree but still have room to go. For some of us Grammar just is not something that pops out to us. It doesn't come easy and the time to study and learn all of it even if we want to just doesn't exist.
I should find a website or a course that would help me learn it. Sucking at grammar doesn't make someone stupid. The same as not being able to swing a hammer doesn't make someone stupid. Insert any activity and the statement works.
Sorry Gramar Nazi's, I do try.
It's "rein in," not "reign in."
Initially I opened this topic to see the response to the video I had in mind. That being said, certain things (most of which have been mentioned earlier) take away from the actual point. I would almost consider it a weakness.Nice one!
Anyway, this is a Grammar Nazi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Word Crimes...lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc)
Secondly, an uncommon error has stayed in my mind for over 20 years -- I reviewed a professionally prepared environmental report, that used the term "Heads of cattles", over and over again for 200 pages.Not a grammar thing but something I saw in a cover letter introducing the writer's novel that has haunted me ever since. " . . . suddenly the facade grinds to a halt." Pretty sure charade was the word she was reaching for there.
Sorry Gramar Nazi's, I do try.
The apostrophe denotes belonging. David's car. It can also denote missing letters; e.g. David's a grammar Nazi. The letter 's' with no apostrophe denotes plurality. There were many cars. I am, therefore, a grammar Nazi; many people in this thread are grammar Nazis.
Ah, I thought it might be this one.Initially I opened this topic to see the response to the video I had in mind. That being said, certain things (most of which have been mentioned earlier) take away from the actual point. I would almost consider it a weakness.Nice one!
Anyway, this is a Grammar Nazi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Sorry Gramar Nazi's, I do try.
The apostrophe denotes belonging. David's car. It can also denote missing letters; e.g. David's a grammar Nazi. The letter 's' with no apostrophe denotes plurality. There were many cars. I am, therefore, a grammar Nazi; many people in this thread are grammar Nazis.
I think he was having a go at us.
Sorry Gramar Nazi's, I do try.
The apostrophe denotes belonging. David's car. It can also denote missing letters; e.g. David's a grammar Nazi. The letter 's' with no apostrophe denotes plurality. There were many cars. I am, therefore, a grammar Nazi; many people in this thread are grammar Nazis.
I think he was having a go at us.
I really do wish I was having a go at you. Sadly my grammar is just that bad. I need to take a couple weekends to study the rules and learn them. Anyone have any good websites or tools to use?
I really do wish I was having a go at you. Sadly my grammar is just that bad. I need to take a couple weekends to study the rules and learn them. Anyone have any good websites or tools to use?
I really do wish I was having a go at you. Sadly my grammar is just that bad. I need to take a couple weekends to study the rules and learn them. Anyone have any good websites or tools to use?
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/) is always a useful site. I think you would find clicking on "General Writing" and then looking at the "Mechanics", "Grammar", and "Writing" sections to be most useful.
As an offender of grammatical errors, I apologize. I wish I could keep all the errors straight. In my defense in middle school I went to my English Teacher and asked for help (at a public school). She refused to help me or even get me a tutor to help me with it saying she didn't understand what I was having trouble with. Granted I should have went to my parents and sought help elsewhere but at the time I took that to mean it did not matter. While going through College I did learn a bit more and have straightened out some to a degree but still have room to go. For some of us Grammar just is not something that pops out to us. It doesn't come easy and the time to study and learn all of it even if we want to just doesn't exist.I had an English teacher for a mother and she constantly made corrections to all the kids. When you're brought up with it reinforced to no end, most of it sticks, so yes, if it wasn't important when growing up, I can definitely see how it would be difficult to learn it later. I'm seeing things here in this forum that I didn't know and I had always thought I was perfect! ;)
I should find a website or a course that would help me learn it. Sucking at grammar doesn't make someone stupid. The same as not being able to swing a hammer doesn't make someone stupid. Insert any activity and the statement works.
Sorry Gramar Nazi's, I do try.
I think there are a few things that still equate to Nazis. I grew up with white supremacists, for example, and the Nazi analogy is useful. Also people who would use/misuse eugenics. People who blitzkrieg. Or other people who have committed or been victims of mass genocide, e.g. Native Americans, Armenians, Rwandans, Japan and China, aboriginal Australians, and the Turks.
It's not like the Nazis had a patent on evil, there were just a lot more movies made about the holocaust than other, sometimes larger, events. So this sanctimonious feigned grievance over appropriation of the word Nazi is probably misplaced. Unless you're really way more upset about Christopher Columbus than you are about Hitler.
+1. Except the sanctimonious part. IMHO, you're 100% wrong there. ;-)I think there are a few things that still equate to Nazis. I grew up with white supremacists, for example, and the Nazi analogy is useful. Also people who would use/misuse eugenics. People who blitzkrieg. Or other people who have committed or been victims of mass genocide, e.g. Native Americans, Armenians, Rwandans, Japan and China, aboriginal Australians, and the Turks.
It's not like the Nazis had a patent on evil, there were just a lot more movies made about the holocaust than other, sometimes larger, events. So this sanctimonious feigned grievance over appropriation of the word Nazi is probably misplaced. Unless you're really way more upset about Christopher Columbus than you are about Hitler.
I think your assumptions about how one reacts to the term Nazi are equally, if not more, misplaced.
I'm a WW2 buff so I'm well aware of the history of the Nazis and their unparalleled place in history. Other events may have similarities, but what the Nazis accomplished in regards to industrialized genocide is in its own class. And yes, white supremacists do look up to them. So if you are implying that I think Nazi should become another n-word and not become part of the language, then we aren't on the same page. The Nazis should be discussed. A lot.
No, I simply object to how casually the term Nazi is thrown around in the context of such-and-such represent the worst of the worst. I'm simply no fan of referring to them quite so casually as others. That's my pet peeve. Well, that, and people assuming I'm being sanctimonious. ;-)
...so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
Sooth: Noun meaning truth (archaic)
Soothe: Verb (with object) meaning gently calm (a person or their feelings)
So, sheepstache, I am confused. Was that your point? Were you just being funny? Or did you not take time to read your own comment? I just can't tell.
First of all, MrsK, my hat's off to you. To be able to speak and write more than one language is a skill I dearly wish I could get my stubborn brain to acquire. I only speak English fluently and my grammar is far from perfect. I am also an extremely poor typist. Even though I preview and proofread every comment, I cringe at the stinkers that get past me. I simply can't imagine being able to do that in more than one language....so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
Sooth: Noun meaning truth (archaic)
Soothe: Verb (with object) meaning gently calm (a person or their feelings)
So, sheepstache, I am confused. Was that your point? Were you just being funny? Or did you not take time to read your own comment? I just can't tell.
Wow. Tough group. I am not a native English speaker and so I will speak up for those of us who bravely try to keep up with American slang and still manage to get much of our basic English grammar correct.
I am French and we have our own language snobbery, but I have to say why would anyone want to be a Grammar Nazi? I think it is more important to try to understand the point a person is making rather than grade them on their grammar.
I have a couple of pronunciation ones that drive me crazy.
"Nip it in the bud" becomes "nip it in the butt".
"Groceries" become "grosheries".
Probably because it is easier and more fun to point out to other people how they can improve than it is to improve oneself....so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
Sooth: Noun meaning truth (archaic)
Soothe: Verb (with object) meaning gently calm (a person or their feelings)
So, sheepstache, I am confused. Was that your point? Were you just being funny? Or did you not take time to read your own comment? I just can't tell.
Wow. Tough group. I am not a native English speaker and so I will speak up for those of us who bravely try to keep up with American slang and still manage to get much of our basic English grammar correct.
I am French and we have our own language snobbery, but I have to say why would anyone want to be a Grammar Nazi? I think it is more important to try to understand the point a person is making rather than grade them on their grammar.
Someone was looking for a grammar book to read. One of the best is "Elements of Style". E. B. White, the children's book author and New Yorker essayist, wrote it in stunningly lucid prose.
Funny! It shows how slippery English is as a language. Odd that it became the lingua franca of the world. I think he misses the point of Elements, though. What the book taught me was that simpler is usually better. Why use "utilize" when "use" is simpler, shorter and means the same thing? I remember E. B. White saying that if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it. I have found that to be true.
As in twice-t? Never heard that
I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
My biggest issue right now is that the vast majority of people I am working with are English-second language. I think this is awesome (I love learning about other cultures) but my English is suffering. I find myself occasionally using grammatically incorrect statements for ease of communication, both written and oral. I also have to greatly simplify my vocabulary. When the majority of my waking hours are spent at work, it's hard to avoid these influences.Join a book group - this may kill two birds with the one stone, as book groups tend to include more females than males and they read a book and then meet to discuss it. Generally speaking the people in book groups are more academically inclined, and probably use better English.
It's Tom and I's birthday today
Hoo boy, don't get me started!
I hate to hear the word "I" misused as a possessive ("It's Tom and I's birthday today.") or used in a prepositional phrase ("Just between you and I.") or used in some part of speech I can't remember the name of ("He asked Sarah and I to come to the party.")
"Y'all" is the singular. "All y'all" is the plural. :)I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Sadly, English doesn't have a good second person plural. "Y'all" is regional, and you (plural) isn't distinguishable.
"She! She and I went to the store! It's not HER AND I! GAAAAAAHH!"
"She! She and I went to the store! It's not HER AND I! GAAAAAAHH!"
Shouldn't they be saying "Her and ME went to the store"? :-) At least in the dialects where object forms are permitted with conjoined subjects?
(Somewhat off topic, in French you *have* to use the "her and me" construction in those types of sentences!)
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit."Y'all" is the singular. "All y'all" is the plural. :)I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Sadly, English doesn't have a good second person plural. "Y'all" is regional, and you (plural) isn't distinguishable.
Shouldn't they be saying "Her and ME went to the store"? :-) At least in the dialects where object forms are permitted with conjoined subjects?No. You do it the same way Marcia explained a few posts up where you use only a single person.
She went to the store.
I went to the store.
Therefore,
She and I went to the store.
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit."Y'all" is the singular. "All y'all" is the plural. :)I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Sadly, English doesn't have a good second person plural. "Y'all" is regional, and you (plural) isn't distinguishable.
Being a Jersey native but having lived in the south for close to twenty years I have successfully used "y'all you guys" in a sentence. :D
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit."Y'all" is the singular. "All y'all" is the plural. :)I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Sadly, English doesn't have a good second person plural. "Y'all" is regional, and you (plural) isn't distinguishable.
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit."Y'all" is the singular. "All y'all" is the plural. :)I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Sadly, English doesn't have a good second person plural. "Y'all" is regional, and you (plural) isn't distinguishable.
Being a Jersey native but having lived in the south for close to twenty years I have successfully used "y'all you guys" in a sentence. :D
That makes me very happy for some reason.
Using the word "so" to begin a conversation/topic/answer to a question.
* http://harryshearer.com/le-show/
What do you say when you're comforting a Grammar Nazi?Har dee har har har! Love this.
There, Their, They're
;P
Our fingers and our brains need to communicate more (better?). You don't want to see what my fingers do to "students". And of course "form" and "from", "teh" and "the", and "adn" and "and". I do a lot of spelling correction.
I love all the above posts. I did much too much proofreading as a teacher, and now I can't stop.
We need Latin in schools! I.e. is id est, e.g. is exemplia gratia, et. al. is et alia, and so on. If people knew what the abbreviations were short for, maybe they would use them properly? And, a period goes after every abbreviation, so i.e. is i.e. not ie. The plural of radius is radii, and the plural of ulna is ulnae, because they are from Latin.
Of course English is weird, since it has incorporated so many languages. The plural of mouse is mice, but the plural of house is houses. The plural of goose is geese, but the plural of moose is moose. I thought I had trouble learning the 16 irregular verbs in French, but English - I pity people coming to it as adults.It's like when I type the word third. I just can't get my fingers to do it right when I'm going fast, so it's spelled t-h-r-i-d-[backspace]-[backspace]-[backspace]-i-r-d.
Using the word "so" to begin a conversation/topic/answer to a question.
* http://harryshearer.com/le-show/
That's the counterpart to the trailing "but". I have a particular group of friends who habitually end sentences with the word but, as if they were about to continue talking, but they don't have a second half of the sentence.
I think it started because they were so used to interrupting each other, or finishing each other's sentences, that it became a convenient transitional word between parties in a multi-sided conversational thread. They find it very awkward when one of them does it, and then I just stare at them silently waiting for them to continue, and they look at me like "don't you know that's your cue that I'm finished and you're supposed to start talking now?"
I've never heard anyone else but this group of about ten people do it, but they all do it, consistently.
As a long time student of Latin, Greek, and the Classics in general, I would love to see more students in those classes, but I would not hold them to some impossible standard of knowing the pluralization for foreign words. (As can be noted by your incorrect expansion of the abbreviation eg). The fact is that even after studying for several years do not always naturally know the pluralization of particular words. If English borrows a word from Latin or Greek, please just use the anglicized plural. Do not pretend to know the original plural except for maybe the common words.
Here is a list of words intelligent people pluralize incorrectly:
Virus
Octopus
Platypus
Apparatus
Rhinoceros
And many other 3rd and 4th declension nouns that have unexpected pluralizations.
Let's honestly just let language be language and pluralize our words as we naturally would in English
Just read that Toyota decided that the plural of Prius is Prii...
*le sigh*
Also, don't the newer Priuses (Prius', Pri-i, Priusi?) or some other hybrid have that 'feature' where they turn off at stoplights?
We need Latin in schools! I.e. is id est, e.g. is exemplia gratia, et. al. is et alia, and so on. If people knew what
We need Latin in schools! I.e. is id est, e.g. is exemplia gratia, et. al. is et alia, and so on. If people knew what
Et al. is et alia if we're in the business of being picky. ;)
We need Latin in schools! I.e. is id est, e.g. is exemplia gratia, et. al. is et alia, and so on. If people knew what
Et al. is et alia if we're in the business of being picky. ;)
I've read this 10 times and don't see a difference.
We need Latin in schools! I.e. is id est, e.g. is exemplia gratia, et. al. is et alia, and so on. If people knew what
Et al. is et alia if we're in the business of being picky. ;)
I've read this 10 times and don't see a difference.
Just read that Toyota decided that the plural of Prius is Prii...
*le sigh*
I'm a grammar libertarian.
I don't like the use of the term "Nazi" in this or any other loose context. Candidly I find it offensive...much more so than any grammatical mangling. For me, this is a penultimate "N" word. Unless it's a historical reference OR a reference to a current hate group, I don't like it.
I'm a grammar libertarian.Your comment is offensive to libertarians.
I'm a grammar libertarian.Your comment is offensive to libertarians.
I think he means that as far as grammar goes, he doesn't really give a crap what other people do. Doesn't offend me at all.
I'm a grammar libertarian.Your comment is offensive to libertarians.
I think he means that as far as grammar goes, he doesn't really give a crap what other people do. Doesn't offend me at all.
I know. I was just trying to poke fun at all the "I don't like the word nazi" people.
3.) Shined vs shone. "He shined his flashlight on the dark path." Shined is when something is polished. "The maid shined the silver." Shone is what someone did with a light to illuminate something.
I once threw a book across the room because the story seemed to take place only at night and everyone seemed to have their very own flashlight that they gleefully "shined" everywhere. Gurrr.
I also really hate that the new "standard" thanks to spell-check for spelling is Judgmental vs. judgemental.
Well, I'm only changing my way of spelling it if I can also change pronunciation. From now on, I will be pronouncing it "jug-mental".I also really hate that the new "standard" thanks to spell-check for spelling is Judgmental vs. judgemental.
What? Since when was judgemental ever the "standard"? I spelled that correctly in a spelling bee in the 5th grade (the correct spelling is, of course, judgmental).
Don't be a jugmental person. Bad things can happen.That is me! Thank you -- made me laugh!
Don't be a jugmental person. Bad things can happen.That is me! Thank you -- made me laugh!
Certain mistakes seem to be contagious. Where I work, we have senior managers who routinely use myself when they mean me. "Send the email to Bob and myself." More and more people seem to be copying them.
Certain mistakes seem to be contagious. Where I work, we have senior managers who routinely use myself when they mean me. "Send the email to Bob and myself." More and more people seem to be copying them.
At the risk of being corrected by the GN's who actually know what they are talking about, I would assume they do it because writing "Send the email to me and Bob" is an offence punishable by hanging?
I was always taught "Bob and I". Perhaps there is simply an aversion to using the word "me"?
Heh. I always corrected my teachers on that, even in grade one. "I" is the nominative case of the pronoun, so it's not appropriate for use as the argument to a preposition such as "to". Prepositions are always followed by the accusative case -- which is "me". It's always "to me", never "to I", regardless of whether somebody else is involved.
Certain mistakes seem to be contagious. Where I work, we have senior managers who routinely use myself when they mean me. "Send the email to Bob and myself." More and more people seem to be copying them.
At the risk of being corrected by the GN's who actually know what they are talking about, I would assume they do it because writing "Send the email to me and Bob" is an offence punishable by hanging?
I was always taught "Bob and I". Perhaps there is simply an aversion to using the word "me"?
Heh. I always corrected my teachers on that, even in grade one. "I" is the nominative case of the pronoun, so it's not appropriate for use as the argument to a preposition such as "to". Prepositions are always followed by the accusative case -- which is "me". It's always "to me", never "to I", regardless of whether somebody else is involved.
I don't remember all the names of the different cases. What I do is take out the other person. Would you say, "send the email to I"? How about, "send the email to myself"?
Uh, no and no (I hope)!
Exactly! "Send the email to Bob and me" is correct here.
unthaw... do you me freeze or thaw
PCV Valve
ATM machine
These bother me
Certain mistakes seem to be contagious. Where I work, we have senior managers who routinely use myself when they mean me. "Send the email to Bob and myself." More and more people seem to be copying them.
At the risk of being corrected by the GN's who actually know what they are talking about, I would assume they do it because writing "Send the email to me and Bob" is an offence punishable by hanging?
I was always taught "Bob and I". Perhaps there is simply an aversion to using the word "me"?
Heh. I always corrected my teachers on that, even in grade one. "I" is the nominative case of the pronoun, so it's not appropriate for use as the argument to a preposition such as "to". Prepositions are always followed by the accusative case -- which is "me". It's always "to me", never "to I", regardless of whether somebody else is involved.
I don't remember all the names of the different cases. What I do is take out the other person. Would you say, "send the email to I"? How about, "send the email to myself"?
Uh, no and no (I hope)!
Exactly! "Send the email to Bob and me" is correct here.
Slightly off-topic, but I got into an argument with my 7th-grade Math teacher over the following question:
How many possible answer keys are there for a 25-question, multiple-choice exam, where there are 4 choices per question?
Slightly off-topic, but I got into an argument with my 7th-grade Math teacher over the following question:
How many possible answer keys are there for a 25-question, multiple-choice exam, where there are 4 choices per question?
1,125,899,906,842,624
Aka 4^25
Slightly off topic, but I couldn't help but think of this thread. And it's probably in poor taste, but I laughed.
http://imgur.com/K65QfnJ
"I ask writers to insure that there is something visual on each page."
Slightly off-topic, but I got into an argument with my 7th-grade Math teacher over the following question:
How many possible answer keys are there for a 25-question, multiple-choice exam, where there are 4 choices per question?
1,125,899,906,842,624
Aka 4^25
Exactly. The original "correct" answer was 4*25=100.
He has a habit of saying "at this point in time". It makes me wince every time, but I'm trying to make a game of keeping my mouth shut.I don't know what's wrong with that. Is it considered redundant?
He has a habit of saying "at this point in time". It makes me wince every time, but I'm trying to make a game of keeping my mouth shut.I don't know what's wrong with that. Is it considered redundant?
Before I read this forum I'd never encountered "spend" as a noun, e.g. "my annual spend". It grates against my eyeballs. Should be "spending".
Before I read this forum I'd never encountered "spend" as a noun, e.g. "my annual spend". It grates against my eyeballs. Should be "spending".
Me neither, but I use it now. Is it a British thing? Or an Australian thing? Or even a Canadian thing? Because it's a more efficient way of getting the point across (spend instead of spending), I embrace it.
Before I read this forum I'd never encountered "spend" as a noun, e.g. "my annual spend". It grates against my eyeballs. Should be "spending".
Me neither, but I use it now. Is it a British thing? Or an Australian thing? Or even a Canadian thing? Because it's a more efficient way of getting the point across (spend instead of spending), I embrace it.
I dunno where it originated. I don't know where any of the things that bug me originate: starting a reply to a question with "So...", constant use of "right?" as an emphasizer, etc. You hear it once and then all of a sudden it's all over the place, like the decision has been made in a smoke-filled room somewhere that this is how we're going to talk from now on. (Don't get me started on "in the future" or "from now on" being replaced by "going/moving forward".)
It just struck me as another example of the nounification-of-verbs trend. Although it appears to be common in some circles, I only recently encountered "ask" as a noun, e.g. "that's a big ask". No matter how hard I tried, I could not un-hear it.
Before I read this forum I'd never encountered "spend" as a noun, e.g. "my annual spend". It grates against my eyeballs. Should be "spending".
Me neither, but I use it now. Is it a British thing? Or an Australian thing? Or even a Canadian thing? Because it's a more efficient way of getting the point across (spend instead of spending), I embrace it.
I dunno where it originated. I don't know where any of the things that bug me originate: starting a reply to a question with "So...", constant use of "right?" as an emphasizer, etc. You hear it once and then all of a sudden it's all over the place, like the decision has been made in a smoke-filled room somewhere that this is how we're going to talk from now on. (Don't get me started on "in the future" or "from now on" being replaced by "going/moving forward".)
It just struck me as another example of the nounification-of-verbs trend. Although it appears to be common in some circles, I only recently encountered "ask" as a noun, e.g. "that's a big ask". No matter how hard I tried, I could not un-hear it.
I love the verbification-of-nouns trend. 'Math' is a great example. We here on this forum know how to math, but those poor suckers on the outside can't math worth a crap.
When people say less instead of fewer! Countable vs uncountable nouns people, it's not that hard!
Can = ability; may = permission
Attorneys general not Attorney generals or sisters in law not sister in laws.
My final one for now is 'repluralising'; 'agendas'. Agendum is singular, agenda is plural, agendas is nonsense.
[Sorry, my inner Word Nerd needs to jump out whenever it gets the chance!]
Agendum is singular, agenda is plural, agendas is nonsense.
Agendum is singular, agenda is plural, agendas is nonsense.
Agendum is singular, agenda is plural, agendas is nonsense.
Sorry. This one might make you an actual nazi. Agenda/agendas in English. Agendum is from some other language that is irrelevant here.
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
I think that might be a southern thing. I used to hear that all the time in the South, but I don't hear it too much in the mid-Atlantic region.
I first heard Scottish friends say it (needs done, needs fixed, needs murdered etc.), but I do hear it occasionally from other people these days and I suspect I have said it myself. I like it. It has a ring of brisk practicality to me. :) I have yet to see it written, aside from the above.
P.S. Was it a faux pas to use :) in a grammar thread?
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
I think that might be a southern thing. I used to hear that all the time in the South, but I don't hear it too much in the mid-Atlantic region.
I first heard Scottish friends say it (needs done, needs fixed, needs murdered etc.), but I do hear it occasionally from other people these days and I suspect I have said it myself. I like it. It has a ring of brisk practicality to me. :) I have yet to see it written, aside from the above.
P.S. Was it a faux pas to use :) in a grammar thread?
"...this is how we're going to talk from now on. "
It just struck me as another example of the nounification-of-verbs trend. Although it appears to be common in some circles, I only recently encountered "ask" as a noun, e.g. "that's a big ask". No matter how hard I tried, I could not un-hear it.
What a great thread. Most of my little annoyances have been covered already. I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
I live in Asia so I do see a lot of absolute corkers but some of my favourites are the ones that are pretty close but just not quite there...examples include...
I can see a sign out of my window for an insurance company called Insular Life. (Insurance for the small minded or isolated?)
I walked past a restaurant today offering Subversive Filipino Cuisine. (Shall we alert the authorities about an impending culinary takeover with force involved?)
Oh and something I see a lot is the misuse of the word serviced. I saw an ad for a real estate agency that has claimed to have been servicing the senior management of many high profile companies for years. (Now this may not come across as rude to Americans but the Brits would have a field day with that.)
It just struck me as another example of the nounification-of-verbs trend. Although it appears to be common in some circles, I only recently encountered "ask" as a noun, e.g. "that's a big ask". No matter how hard I tried, I could not un-hear it.
I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
I think it has to do with the novelty of the word and how accustomed you are to hearing it. For example, does it bother you if someone says they'll be "making a call"? Instead of calling someone? I'm sure the first time that was used, it was considered non-standard."...this is how we're going to talk from now on. "
It just struck me as another example of the nounification-of-verbs trend. Although it appears to be common in some circles, I only recently encountered "ask" as a noun, e.g. "that's a big ask". No matter how hard I tried, I could not un-hear it.
Ouch, I can feel my second-grade teacher rapping my knuckles for using "talk" when I should say "speak".
In the non-profit world, an "ask" is a request for support, typically monetary. I'm so used to the term that I'm surprised at the blank looks it generates should I unthinkingly use it outside of non-profit circles.
I love that this thread is still generating new input. It offers great food for thought and reminds me that perfect grammar is a myth. Excellent grammar is worth striving for, but pursuit of absolute grammatical perfection is folly.
A family member likes to describe food as "delish" Yikes!!I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
oh god I hate this so much. thank you for the validation.
I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
oh god I hate this so much. thank you for the validation.
I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
oh god I hate this so much. thank you for the validation.
I already noted that. I actually don't really mind "glam" for some reason but may God have mercy on your soul if you say or write "totes," "deets," or something like that to me because I will not.
Just curious, how many people were taught the subjunctive mood and how many still use it? (If I were rich vs If I was rich)
I notice as time goes by and I have fewer people to converse with that were taught this manner of speech, it's disappearing from my conversations. Sometimes I hear myself and then think ooooh, where did THAT come from?
I've also read that there was never any basis in the language for subjunctive mood, but that it was introduced in some fancy school in England in the 19th century as a shibboleth to identify who did or didn't have proper breeding, schooling, etc. there is something to say about language evolution if words can be bred IN for the exclusive purpose of selective exclusion. But I guess that's where all slang starts too?
I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
oh god I hate this so much. thank you for the validation.
I already noted that. I actually don't really mind "glam" for some reason but may God have mercy on your soul if you say or write "totes," "deets," or something like that to me because I will not.
But seriously, what's the cutoff for shortened versions? You'd be looked at like you had a third head if you used web log now instead of blog, even though Blog is the shortened version. Many other examples exist, although most of them seem technology based that I can think of off the top of my head (fax, cell (as in phone), etc)
But seriously, what's the cutoff for shortened versions? You'd be looked at like you had a third head if you used web log now instead of blog, even though Blog is the shortened version. Many other examples exist, although most of them seem technology based that I can think of off the top of my head (fax, cell (as in phone), etc)
Yeah, what Eric said. Maybe the new shortenings seem to be mostly tech words (ooh, I didn't write "technology", bad bad me) because older shortenings are invisible to us (as shortenings). Taxi, bus, cab, mob, pop (music)... hmm, I guess some of those are tech words, just older tech.
And if you think "weblog" will get you funny looks, try hailing a taximetered cabriolet some time!
I will add to the list, shortened versions of words being used instead of the whole word. I hear people calling things glam, for example. That makes my skin crawl.
oh god I hate this so much. thank you for the validation.
I already noted that. I actually don't really mind "glam" for some reason but may God have mercy on your soul if you say or write "totes," "deets," or something like that to me because I will not.
Whatevs!
But seriously, what's the cutoff for shortened versions? You'd be looked at like you had a third head if you used web log now instead of blog, even though Blog is the shortened version. Many other examples exist, although most of them seem technology based that I can think of off the top of my head (fax, cell (as in phone), etc)
I want to jump off a 12 story building every time I hear an adult use baby-talk. Jammies (pajamas), din-din (dinner), etc. My 75-year old mother has recently started doing this, despite the fact that we were NEVER allowed baby-talk even when we were babies! We skipped directly from "Da-da" to "Good morning, Mother. Please pass the fruit spread"But seriously, what's the cutoff for shortened versions? You'd be looked at like you had a third head if you used web log now instead of blog, even though Blog is the shortened version. Many other examples exist, although most of them seem technology based that I can think of off the top of my head (fax, cell (as in phone), etc)
Yeah, what Eric said. Maybe the new shortenings seem to be mostly tech words (ooh, I didn't write "technology", bad bad me) because older shortenings are invisible to us (as shortenings). Taxi, bus, cab, mob, pop (music)... hmm, I guess some of those are tech words, just older tech.
And if you think "weblog" will get you funny looks, try hailing a taximetered cabriolet some time!
Yeah ... I think it's just really subjective and not especially rational. I don't mind "blog" or any of the words Gerard listed. But I hate "comfy," "cray," "veggies," and "din" (which my spouse regularly uses to refer to "dinner" even though he KNOWS I hate it). For example.
*cue outraged posters who say "veggies" all the time and are super offended about my personal word preference*
But seriously, what's the cutoff for shortened versions? You'd be looked at like you had a third head if you used web log now instead of blog, even though Blog is the shortened version. Many other examples exist, although most of them seem technology based that I can think of off the top of my head (fax, cell (as in phone), etc)
Yeah, what Eric said. Maybe the new shortenings seem to be mostly tech words (ooh, I didn't write "technology", bad bad me) because older shortenings are invisible to us (as shortenings). Taxi, bus, cab, mob, pop (music)... hmm, I guess some of those are tech words, just older tech.
And if you think "weblog" will get you funny looks, try hailing a taximetered cabriolet some time!
Yeah ... I think it's just really subjective and not especially rational. I don't mind "blog" or any of the words Gerard listed. But I hate "comfy," "cray," "veggies," and "din" (which my spouse regularly uses to refer to "dinner" even though he KNOWS I hate it). For example.
*cue outraged posters who say "veggies" all the time and are super offended about my personal word preference*
This is not a grammar mistake but a commonly misunderstood term.
People like to say some technology is light-years ahead of some other technology. This drives me crazy, as a light year is a measure of distance, not time!
This is not a grammar mistake but a commonly misunderstood term.
People like to say some technology is light-years ahead of some other technology. This drives me crazy, as a light year is a measure of distance, not time!
Do you get pissed when someone says they're 'miles ahead of you' or 'three steps ahead' or 'way out in front' or 'lagging behind' or other measures of distance too, or do you just hate space?
This is not a grammar mistake but a commonly misunderstood term.
People like to say some technology is light-years ahead of some other technology. This drives me crazy, as a light year is a measure of distance, not time!
Do you get pissed when someone says they're 'miles ahead of you' or 'three steps ahead' or 'way out in front' or 'lagging behind' or other measures of distance too, or do you just hate space?
I don't. I think its weird.
This is not a grammar mistake but a commonly misunderstood term.
People like to say some technology is light-years ahead of some other technology. This drives me crazy, as a light year is a measure of distance, not time!
Do you get pissed when someone says they're 'miles ahead of you' or 'three steps ahead' or 'way out in front' or 'lagging behind' or other measures of distance too, or do you just hate space?
I don't. I think its weird.
*it's
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQWn8HD22tcAvLJNpj2ORYOB-pmE_Pm6hVJV-in3CBH0QOa3QEHmQ)
(Sorry johnny847. I couldn't care less on any other thread. ;) )
I typed accept when I meant except recently. It really worried me as it's not the first time something like this has happened. I've found a few instances but only when I type with my thumbs.
Is this a known thing that our brains may swap out homonyms when our thumbs are working. I'm pretty worried that this could be the first symptom of dementia. I don't know if I've done it other times and not caught it. I realize when I type with thumbs I look at keyboard and not at written words, so maybe that's part of the problem.
Either way, it's embarrasing.
I typed accept when I meant except recently.
Either way, it's embarrasing.
Is this a known thing that our brains may swap out homonyms when our thumbs are working.
I feel so much better. Thanks!Is this a known thing that our brains may swap out homonyms when our thumbs are working.
I'm pretty sure it's not dementia and not thumb-based (I'm making some of this stuff up, but I'm extending from work on errors in speech and writing). One thing that's probably going on is that routinized typing encourages you to replace infrequently-typed words with frequent ones (or ones that are frequent or salient in your life); the other is that thumb typing is kind of a pain in the ass, especially for us elderly (over 30) folks, so our attention is focused on the thumb thing rather than the word/spelling retrieval thing.
I mean, you could have dementia, but this is probably not evidence of it.
My husband absolutely despises it when someone talks about e.g. "Agreeing 110%."
And I can't stand 24x7x365. Do the math!My husband absolutely despises it when someone talks about e.g. "Agreeing 110%."
I couldn't agree any more than the 100% with which I already agree.
My personal noun to verb "favorite" is when people use "office" as a verb: "I office from home two days per week."
My hand involuntarily curls into a face-punching fist whenever I hear that.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gift?q=gift (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gift?q=gift)
My personal noun to verb "favorite" is when people use "office" as a verb: "I office from home two days per week."
My hand involuntarily curls into a face-punching fist whenever I hear that.
My "favorite" is when "gift" is used as a verb. I spit up in my mouth a little every time I see it. Is there something wrong with "to give"? Why do people do this?
Similarly, I have a coworker who types "defiantly" every time he means "definitely" and has been doing so for years now. Drives me nuts!I'm generally a very good speller (or I used to be before I got so lazy). But there are certain words that have always been difficult for me. I know what these words are. I know how to spell them because I've memorized them. But my brain works differently with these words and I don't have them memorized the same way other words are memorized. I have to use tricks to get the correct spelling and it slows me down a lot when typing.
Similarly, I have a coworker who types "defiantly" every time he means "definitely" and has been doing so for years now. Drives me nuts!I have to use tricks to get the correct spelling and it slows me down a lot when typing.
Definitely is one of these words.
Similarly, I have a coworker who types "defiantly" every time he means "definitely" and has been doing so for years now. Drives me nuts!I have to use tricks to get the correct spelling and it slows me down a lot when typing.
Definitely is one of these words.
This is one of my commonly misspelled words as well ... I memorized it by remembering "finite" in the middle of the word :-)
I haven't really paid attention to this one until recently, but I see a lot of people using the term "Pre-planning". Isn't that just planning?
Fare and fair.
Similarly, I have a coworker who types "defiantly" every time he means "definitely" and has been doing so for years now. Drives me nuts!
Instead of right now, say at this particular point in time.In South Africa, "now" doesn't mean now. It means later. Unless you say "just now", then that means much later. Just cracked me up thinking of that. The fastest you can get anything done is "now now", but that just means soon, but not right now.
Instead of right now, say at this particular point in time.In South Africa, "now" doesn't mean now. It means later. Unless you say "just now", then that means much later. Just cracked me up thinking of that. The fastest you can get anything done is "now now", but that just means soon, but not right now.
For me the biggest thing that irks me isn't one specific mistake (they're/there/their or loose/lose etc.) but repeated mistakes. I can overlook any typo done once or twice, though I'll usually still notice and cringe a little on the inside. What gets me is when people make the same mistake over and over. I tried reading gocurrycracker.com a few times and had to stop because they have a chronic issue with dropping periods from the last sentence in each paragraph. Once I noticed that it was all I could see and it drove me up the effing wall.
For me the biggest thing that irks me isn't one specific mistake (they're/there/their or loose/lose etc.) but repeated mistakes. I can overlook any typo done once or twice, though I'll usually still notice and cringe a little on the inside. What gets me is when people make the same mistake over and over. I tried reading gocurrycracker.com a few times and had to stop because they have a chronic issue with dropping periods from the last sentence in each paragraph. Once I noticed that it was all I could see and it drove me up the effing wall.
Oh, God, I thought that was just me. I can read GCC but I keep wanting to yell WHY DO YOU HATE USING PERIODS?
And more annoying shortened words I see:
Rezzies (reservations)
Vacay (vacation)
Resto (restaurant)
Luxe (deluxe)
Bae (baby)
For me the biggest thing that irks me isn't one specific mistake (they're/there/their or loose/lose etc.) but repeated mistakes. I can overlook any typo done once or twice, though I'll usually still notice and cringe a little on the inside. What gets me is when people make the same mistake over and over. I tried reading gocurrycracker.com a few times and had to stop because they have a chronic issue with dropping periods from the last sentence in each paragraph. Once I noticed that it was all I could see and it drove me up the effing wall.
Oh, God, I thought that was just me. I can read GCC but I keep wanting to yell WHY DO YOU HATE USING PERIODS?
Another 'noun as verb' example...
At the Olympics competitors now 'medal' in an event instead of 'win a medal'. Argh!
Another 'noun as verb' example...
At the Olympics competitors now 'medal' in an event instead of 'win a medal'. Argh!
I've never heard complaints about noun as verb stuff before. There are many words that are both nouns and verbs already (pipe, drive, slot, whip, start, end... the list goes on), why not add more if it makes the language succinct without loss of meaning?
Oooohhh, and then there's the need to use many syllables to appear more intelligent.
Instead of car, say vehicle.
Formation of nouns from verbs has been going on for the entire history of the language. It's not a novel offensive concept. For example, the word "kidnapper" is the original form of the word, first found in the 1600s. The verb "to kidnap" was constructed as a verb version of the noun. Given the centuries-old history, it's hard to argue that construction of verbs from nouns is per se objectionable.Oooohhh, and then there's the need to use many syllables to appear more intelligent.
Instead of car, say vehicle.
These words aren't synonyms. "Vehicle" describes any machine or device used for carrying something, and also has an even broader metaphorical use (e.g. IRA as a "savings vehicle"). If the speaker wants to focus on the nature of the device as something that transports people, "vehicle" may well be a better choice than "car", which brings to mind specifically one kind of vehicle. In writing and speaking, we're often forced to choose between words with similar meanings, and the choice of which to use is based on the expectations of the audience, the intent of the speaker, and other relevant factors. I agree with you that simpler language is generally preferably, but good writers don't follow rigid rules like "never use the word 'vehicle'", because that's silly.
Formation of nouns from verbs has been going on for the entire history of the language. It's not a novel offensive concept. For example, the word "kidnapper" is the original form of the word, first found in the 1600s. The verb "to kidnap" was constructed as a verb version of the noun. Given the centuries-old history, it's hard to argue that construction of verbs from nouns is per se objectionable.Oooohhh, and then there's the need to use many syllables to appear more intelligent.
Instead of car, say vehicle.
These words aren't synonyms. "Vehicle" describes any machine or device used for carrying something, and also has an even broader metaphorical use (e.g. IRA as a "savings vehicle"). If the speaker wants to focus on the nature of the device as something that transports people, "vehicle" may well be a better choice than "car", which brings to mind specifically one kind of vehicle. In writing and speaking, we're often forced to choose between words with similar meanings, and the choice of which to use is based on the expectations of the audience, the intent of the speaker, and other relevant factors. I agree with you that simpler language is generally preferably, but good writers don't follow rigid rules like "never use the word 'vehicle'", because that's silly.
No, of course, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about people (and I know more than a few) who literally never say the word "car" to mean their car. They always, always, say vehicle. Because, I think, they feel it makes them sound more erudite.
I tried reading gocurrycracker.com a few times and had to stop because they have a chronic issue with dropping periods from the last sentence in each paragraph.
Formation of nouns from verbs has been going on for the entire history of the language. It's not a novel offensive concept. For example, the word "kidnapper" is the original form of the word, first found in the 1600s. The verb "to kidnap" was constructed as a verb version of the noun. Given the centuries-old history, it's hard to argue that construction of verbs from nouns is per se objectionable.
Incentive --> Incentivize. Why can't we just say offer an incentive? this word has become pervasive.
Conversation --> Conversate (from a doctor, no less)
The verb that goes with "conversation" is "to converse".Yes. I know! So how do I tell my doctor that? I've heard "conversate" more than once and almost choke when I do.Conversation --> Conversate (from a doctor, no less)
The verb that goes with "conversation" is "to converse".Yes. I know! So how do I tell my doctor that? I've heard "conversate" more than once and almost choke when I do.Conversation --> Conversate (from a doctor, no less)
These days most everyone uses a computer which conveys no real information unless you decode the incorrect meaningless words. They mean: These days almost everyone uses a computer, or possibly "These days most people use a computer.
What's wrong with don't? Seriously? Now I'm afraid to speak.
I swear on everything that's holy, if I see one more person make a plural with an apostrophe, I'm gonna stroke out.
Which means I should probably cash in all my retirement funds and go on a massive spending spree, because I don't have that long to live.
I swear on everything that's holy, if I see one more person make a plural with an apostrophe, I'm gonna stroke out.
Which means I should probably cash in all my retirement funds and go on a massive spending spree, because I don't have that long to live.
Do consider donating to one of my retirement.Spoiler: show
Lol good one, Grid! Thanks for the laugh!
I swear on everything that's holy, if I see one more person make a plural with an apostrophe, I'm gonna stroke out.
Which means I should probably cash in all my retirement funds and go on a massive spending spree, because I don't have that long to live.
Do consider donating to one of my retirement.Spoiler: show
Lol good one, Grid! Thanks for the laugh!
I like the little sayings:
You can have a little or a lot.
If you spell definitely with an A, then you're definitely an A-hole. (Thanks, Oatmeal!)
So, I'm guessing that this is a pro-Oxford comma crowd?
It's the only way to be.I like the little sayings:
You can have a little or a lot.
If you spell definitely with an A, then you're definitely an A-hole. (Thanks, Oatmeal!)
So, I'm guessing that this is a pro-Oxford comma crowd?
I don't know about the crowd, but I am definitely pro-Oxford comma.
I stpd carign wen I reeleyezed thet I he'd no prahblem undrstand'n wriitin lik thes. Unlass it fermal I justa dewnt kair.
I also hate quote punctuation. Putting the punctuation inside the close quote just bothers me.
| Argument on the subject is impossible; it is only a question whether the printer's love for the old ways that seem to him so neat, or the writer's and reader's desire to be understood and to understand fully, is to prevail. |
I also hate quote punctuation. Putting the punctuation inside the close quote just bothers me.
This is not really a grammar issue. It's more in the domain of typography. According to one internet source of unclear pedigree (http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxvsxxxx.html), the tradition of placing punctuation inside quotation marks regardless of the structure of the sentence can be traced to a peculiarity of historical printing presses.
The above source cites Fowler as opposing the historical practice. The relevant Fowler chapter, "Quotation Marks (http://www.bartleby.com/116/406.html)" (published 1908) is well worth reading and actually contains a pretty lengthy argument on why the historical practice should not be followed and why punctuation should be placed according to the structure of the sentence, not always inside the quotation marks. At one point he saliently notes:
Argument on the subject is impossible; it is only a question whether the printer's love for the old ways that seem to him so neat, or the writer's and reader's desire to be understood and to understand fully, is to prevail.
For my part, I've never respected or followed the historical tradition. As you may have noticed from my corpus of writing on this forum, I always place my punctuation according to the structure of the sentence.
Excellent. Thanks, me gots something to reed.
Poor, pour, pore.
"We poured over the new catalog." You poured what over the catalog? Syrup?
Peak, peek, pique.
"The stranger's accent peaked my interest." So your interest climbed a mountain?
Poor, pour, pore.
"We poured over the new catalog." You poured what over the catalog? Syrup?
Peak, peek, pique.
"The stranger's accent peaked my interest." So your interest climbed a mountain?
With things like this, I wonder whether people are being lazy or stupid. I often use colloquialisms in casual speech that I know are not correct but which fit the moment, like misusing the word "literally". But if I think about it, I know that I didn't "literally die laughing". Indeed, sometimes the fact that it's so wrong adds to the joke to me (privately). If you asked someone who "poured over a catalogue" to think about what they said for a second, would they know it was wrong? The kind person inside me wants to say they would and were just being lazy (which can be forgiven in general conversation) but the realist in me says they would have no idea. It particularly bothers me when people who ought to know better and be precise do this, such as interviewers on the radio. They are not allowed to be lazy, so must be stupid.
Poor, pour, pore.
"We poured over the new catalog." You poured what over the catalog? Syrup?
Peak, peek, pique.
"The stranger's accent peaked my interest." So your interest climbed a mountain?
With things like this, I wonder whether people are being lazy or stupid. I often use colloquialisms in casual speech that I know are not correct but which fit the moment, like misusing the word "literally". But if I think about it, I know that I didn't "literally die laughing". Indeed, sometimes the fact that it's so wrong adds to the joke to me (privately). If you asked someone who "poured over a catalogue" to think about what they said for a second, would they know it was wrong? The kind person inside me wants to say they would and were just being lazy (which can be forgiven in general conversation) but the realist in me says they would have no idea. It particularly bothers me when people who ought to know better and be precise do this, such as interviewers on the radio. They are not allowed to be lazy, so must be stupid.
Excellent. Thanks, me gots something to reed.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/396/683/94d.png)
Unfortunately, these days, they are written incorrectly so often on social media, blogs, etc. that the wrong forms are probably being reinforced in the only media most people read anymore.
Unfortunately, these days, they are written incorrectly so often on social media, blogs, etc. that the wrong forms are probably being reinforced in the only media most people read anymore.
Because of that, I think eventually "your" and "you're" will officially switch meanings. It's starting to happen already. (Or maybe we'll drop them for a phonetic version like "yorr".)
I've already started to see "you're" used as the possessive. The sequence of events is understandable: the writer remembers from grammar school that "you're" and "your" are different, but also knows that all their friends use "your" to mean "you are". Assuming their friends are correct, they use "you're" to mean "your".
Unfortunately, these days, they are written incorrectly so often on social media, blogs, etc. that the wrong forms are probably being reinforced in the only media most people read anymore.
Because of that, I think eventually "your" and "you're" will officially switch meanings. It's starting to happen already. (Or maybe we'll drop them for a phonetic version like "yorr".)
I've already started to see "you're" used as the possessive. The sequence of events is understandable: the writer remembers from grammar school that "you're" and "your" are different, but also knows that all their friends use "your" to mean "you are". Assuming their friends are correct, they use "you're" to mean "your".
^^Shudder^^ This reminds me of the famous Mom Nag, "Would you jump off a roof just because all your friends are doing it? I think not, but thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I've already started to see "you're" used as the possessive.
QuoteI've already started to see "you're" used as the possessive.
What does that look like? you're's?
No, like using "you're" instead of "your" to show possession… I suppose because there's an apostrophe there.
No, like using "you're" instead of "your" to show possession… I suppose because there's an apostrophe there.
Yeah, I would guess the apostrophe is what triggers this... I mean, we do use apostrophes with possessives most of the time. So this, along with possessive it's, is kind of a case of people getting it wrong by making it better (i.e., by levelling the paradigm).
With respect to sneaked/snuck, I think people started doing it playfully, and it just caught on. Another twenty years and nobody will remember sneaked. Like what happened with dived/dove.
Something I see a lot is this:
"I saved $100 dollars."
No. Either it's "$100" or "100 dollars." If there's a currency symbol, no need to spell it out.
Has this been posted in this thread yet? https://xkcd.com/326/
This is not a grammar rant, but I need to complain about this word usage:
I am tired of the phrase "I tried to tell him/ I tried to explain / "...
What the speaker really means is: I tried to convince him. They did, in fact, "tell him" and "explain" they just did not change anyone's mind or action.
ok, now I am done. This has been bugging me.
It annoys me when people say, "I resemble that remark." When someone says this, they are almost never attempting to be humorous and they really mean to say, "I resent that remark."
Using travesty instead of tragedy. They really don't mean the same thing.
This is not a grammar rant, but I need to complain about this word usage:
I am tired of the phrase "I tried to tell him/ I tried to explain / "...
What the speaker really means is: I tried to convince him. They did, in fact, "tell him" and "explain" they just did not change anyone's mind or action.
ok, now I am done. This has been bugging me.
I can't tell you how annoying I find this thread.
If this matters to you, spend some time tutoring people in English literacy or English as a Second Language. (You'll need to be respectful if you want to do this effectively.)
The people you are quoting are not being careless. They simply don't have the knowledge to use the English language any other way.
Focus on what they are trying to communicate. That is the only point of language. If you stop "listening" because of grammar and spelling, the failure in communication is yours.
Not grammar, but spelling:
It's "whoa", not "woah".
Grrrr.....
You guys should know this: does the exclamation point go inside or outside the quote mark?
You guys should know this: does the exclamation point go inside or outside the quote mark?
If it's not part of the quoted material, it should go on the outside.
Example:
He said, "I hate it when people misspell words!"
vs.
I hate it when people don't know the difference between "whoa" and "woe"!
Just read through this thread. Love it!
I'd like to echo the fiance/fiancee problem because I see it so often on this forum. If your fiance is a man, there is one E at the end. If your fiancee is a woman, there are two Es at the end. In this day and age, it helps eliminate confusion about whether you are gay or not.
No one seems to have mentioned one of my pet peeves: using quotation marks to stress a word rather than using bold or italic font or underlining. Quotation marks are to indicate a quote (hence the name) or to indicate sarcasm or irony.
Every single Thursday morning, a division administrator sends out an email to everyone to remind them to complete their timesheets. It always says the exact same thing (in comic sans, no less):
All timesheets "must" be completed by the close of business TODAY.
I always think to myself, "Know what I mean, wink, wink, nudge, nudge"
No one seems to have mentioned one of my pet peeves: using quotation marks to stress a word rather than using bold or italic font or underlining. Quotation marks are to indicate a quote (hence the name) or to indicate sarcasm or irony.
No one seems to have mentioned one of my pet peeves: using quotation marks to stress a word rather than using bold or italic font or underlining. Quotation marks are to indicate a quote (hence the name) or to indicate sarcasm or irony.
Check out this "blog": http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
I have a tendency to try to pack too much meaning into a single sentence (like stuffing clowns into a clown car), stringing together separate clauses with reckless abandon until even the most assiduous reader will have trouble parsing the tortured maze of a run-on sentence that results (not to mention my corresponding overuse of parenthetical clauses, which technically does not violate any rules of grammar of which I am aware but which (I would imagine) does not sit well with you grammar nazis either (or are you okay with Russian nesting dolls of embedded parentheticals?)).
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.
So, I'm guessing that this is a pro-Oxford comma crowd?
Not necessarily. I'm a comma minimalist. Down with the stuffy Oxford comma etc.
I think some writers lose sight of the purpose of punctuation. Punctuation isn't imposed to decorate the writing through strict adherence to a series of arbitrary rigid rules. The sole purpose of punctuation is to enhance the reader's ability to understand the text (while also not offending the reader's sensibilities by deviating too much from what they expect).Oh, man, I like, love this answer, ya know? (Sorry, couldn't help it. I really do like your perspective, Cathy.)
In school, teachers are prone to teach many "rules" about comma use, such as to use one to introduce or set off certain forms of clauses, or to employ one whenever the reader would pause in oral reading. However, the only real "rule", if it can be called that, is that commas should be employed when they make a sentence easier to parse unambiguously, and not otherwise.
The so-called "Oxford comma" should be used -- not because of the dictates of any Oxford or other authority -- but rather because it serves the salutary purpose of ensuring that a sentence is parsed correctly and that the reader extracts the single unambiguous meaning from it without too much trouble. Omitting such commas is elevating the writer's stylistic preference above the desire of the reader to understand what she is reading.
I'm the exact opposite, I love commas too much. Any time I write something more than a few pages long, I have to go back and manually remove about half of them. It's like my fingers automatically insert them whenever my brain pauses during sentence construction, regardless of whether or not that's where the sentence actually needs one for fluent readability.
I also overuse the word actually.
Heh, sneaky sneaky colour tags. Funnily enough, I was going to post about the distinct lack of commas in that post.
Also noticed the two spaces after the full stops. Which is a whole can of worms that hasn't been opened yet so I just went and did it.
Also noticed the two spaces after the full stops.
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.
You guys should know this: does the exclamation point go inside or outside the quote mark?
If it's not part of the quoted material, it should go on the outside.
Example:
He said, "I hate it when people misspell words!"
vs.
I hate it when people don't know the difference between "whoa" and "woe"!
I have a tendency to try to pack too much meaning into a single sentence (like stuffing clowns into a clown car), stringing together separate clauses with reckless abandon until even the most assiduous reader will have trouble parsing the tortured maze of a run-on sentence that results (not to mention my corresponding overuse of parenthetical clauses, which technically does not violate any rules of grammar of which I am aware but which (I would imagine) does not sit well with you grammar nazis either (or are you okay with Russian nesting dolls of embedded parentheticals?)).
Also noticed the two spaces after the full stops.
I've been on this forum for over three years and have posted here thousands of times. In all of that text, I challenge you to find a single instance of me using a single space between sentences. If you find one, it's a mistake.
Another one I've noticed lately: whinghing or whinging for whining. What's with that g smooshed in the middle there? I don't get it.It's the Queen's English. Wait till you hear someone pronounce it!
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/43913_1217882160595_271_229.jpg)Also noticed the two spaces after the full stops.
I've been on this forum for over three years and have posted here thousands of times. In all of that text, I challenge you to find a single instance of me using a single space between sentences. If you find one, it's a mistake.
One of my grade-school teachers told me to insert a comma "wherever you would naturally pause, were you saying the sentence out loud". That's the rule I still use.
How did I not see this thread until now?
I have a low tolerance. I am definitely one of the spelling, grammar, and punctuation nazis that forms a negative opinion whenever I see violations. I'm especially irritated by the incorrect use of apostrophes.
How did I not see this thread until now?
I have a low tolerance. I am definitely one of the spelling, grammar, and punctuation nazis that forms a negative opinion whenever I see violations. I'm especially irritated by the incorrect use of apostrophes.
What do you have against apostrophe's?
;)
How did I not see this thread until now?
I have a low tolerance. I am definitely one of the spelling, grammar, and punctuation nazis that forms a negative opinion whenever I see violations. I'm especially irritated by the incorrect use of apostrophes.
What do you have against apostrophe's?
;)
Oh, my god... The collective clenching of sphincters... Mine included...
How did I not see this thread until now?
I have a low tolerance. I am definitely one of the spelling, grammar, and punctuation nazis that forms a negative opinion whenever I see violations. I'm especially irritated by the incorrect use of apostrophes.
What do you have against apostrophe's?
;)
Oh, my god... The collective clenching of sphincters... Mine included...
Perfect example of the misappropriated ellipse. Or perhaps it's simply the appropriated ellipse. Someone has to rule on this.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Oh Grammar nazis help me.
I'm usually very good to excellent. I'm working on correcting the "Hopefully, I will..." error now.
The other one that flummoxes me, though, is when to use "that" vs. "which":
Here is the banana that I plan to eat.
Here is the banana which I plan to eat.
Which is correct? Is there a simple rule? I vaguely remember the Microsoft Word grammar tool correcting me on this a lot, but I can't remember which way, and I just changed it until the program was happy; I never internalized any good rule about it.
Thanks!!
I"m not sure that this rule works 100% of the time, but I was taught that whenever "which" is used, it must be preceded by a comma. So when I use "which", I look to see if a comma is appropriate, and if not, I tend to change the sentence up a bit.Oh Grammar nazis help me.
I'm usually very good to excellent. I'm working on correcting the "Hopefully, I will..." error now.
The other one that flummoxes me, though, is when to use "that" vs. "which":
Here is the banana that I plan to eat.
Here is the banana which I plan to eat.
Which is correct? Is there a simple rule? I vaguely remember the Microsoft Word grammar tool correcting me on this a lot, but I can't remember which way, and I just changed it until the program was happy; I never internalized any good rule about it.
Thanks!!
"That" is correct in this instance. "That" is used when what follows is a restrictive clause. That's just a fancy way of saying that you are eating a particular banana, and you're using "that" to clarify that particular banana. "Here is the banana that I plan to eat," vs. some other banana that you plan to throw on the floor.
Here's an example of when "which" would be used.
"Bananas, which are an excellent source of potassium, are nonetheless a little mushy for my taste."
Or, to try to be closer to your original sentence:
"That banana, which is too ripe for my taste, is going to be used for banana bread."
See, in these examples, "which" is used as a relative pronoun to give you extra information. The main sentence is "This banana is going to be used for banana bread." The non-restrictive clause, "which is too ripe for my taste," gives you extra information but doesn't restrict (or change the meaning of) the main sentence.
Does that make sense?
The other one that flummoxes me, though, is when to use "that" vs. "which":
Here is the banana that I plan to eat.
Here is the banana which I plan to eat.
Which is correct? Is there a simple rule?
Oh Grammar nazis help me.
I'm usually very good to excellent. I'm working on correcting the "Hopefully, I will..." error now.
The other one that flummoxes me, though, is when to use "that" vs. "which":
Here is the banana that I plan to eat.
Here is the banana which I plan to eat.
Which is correct? Is there a simple rule? I vaguely remember the Microsoft Word grammar tool correcting me on this a lot, but I can't remember which way, and I just changed it until the program was happy; I never internalized any good rule about it.
Thanks!!
Haha well it's better than in German, where the verb is kicked to the end of the run-on sentence and by the time you get to it, you have no idea what it was referring to.
Haha well it's better than in German, where the verb is kicked to the end of the run-on sentence and by the time you get to it, you have no idea what it was referring to.
Reden Sie nicht schlecht über die schöne deutsche Sprache! ;)
Sorry if my German is terrible, I just started learning about 6 months ago.
Google "the awful German language" by Mark Twain if you haven't read it yet. Or just search for sentences that end in ridiculousness like "haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein" to get a feel for the shenanigans.
An aside: my boyfriend has a big brain. He has degrees in math, chemistry, business and law, and is a mostly wise and well-spoken person. But when he's relaxed, he likes to use bad grammar sometimes. I hate it. I think it makes him sound dumb, and he's not dumb. Not only that, but I think his doing it makes me sound dumb too, by association. He's actually asked me to let up on correcting him. He says he's expected to speak properly all day at work, especially in court, and he likes to let it go a bit when he's relaxed.
Walla instead of voila.
An aside: my boyfriend has a big brain. He has degrees in math, chemistry, business and law, and is a mostly wise and well-spoken person. But when he's relaxed, he likes to use bad grammar sometimes. I hate it. I think it makes him sound dumb, and he's not dumb. Not only that, but I think his doing it makes me sound dumb too, by association. He's actually asked me to let up on correcting him. He says he's expected to speak properly all day at work, especially in court, and he likes to let it go a bit when he's relaxed.
I got a little confused by this. Do you mean he actually uses bad grammar, such as saying "I will go" when he means "I went"? Or do you just mean that he's more skilled at style switching than you are? Like, saying "Ain't gonna happen" when you might say "That eventuality is highly unlikely to occur"?
Google "the awful German language" by Mark Twain if you haven't read it yet. Or just search for sentences that end in ridiculousness like "haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein" to get a feel for the shenanigans.
Was thinking about this thread as I finished reading the book The Universe vs Alex Woods last night. This excellent and hilarious book is set in (and perhaps written in) the UK, and also enjoys playing with German (one of my favourite languages). As has been noted, many of the "errors" listed in this thread are not errors at all, but region (including country) specific. I grew up with parents from different parts of the word, one very masterful with English, but the UK form, and the other just trying to make a good go of it and beating the pants off of all of us in Scrabble. I learned so much from both of them about what isn't wrong, and how often we err if we assume our own form of a given language is "the right" one.Ha! My brain enjoys imagining your parents being from different parts of the word. What word? THE word? That word? Which word?
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.
...and now you'll be receive notifications of all ensuing grammar nazi posts JS ;).
Another one I've noticed lately: whinghing or whinging for whining. What's with that g smooshed in the middle there? I don't get it.
JS - am I now banned from stepping foot on your island? I sure hope not. That would send me whinging out of control.
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.
...and now you'll be receive notifications of all ensuing grammar nazi posts JS ;).
Another one I've noticed lately: whinghing or whinging for whining. What's with that g smooshed in the middle there? I don't get it.
JS - am I now banned from stepping foot on your island? I sure hope not. That would send me whinging out of control.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whinge
It's a word.
I concede, and congratulate ye victors who understand the rules o'English better than I.
Job well done. Top notch.
I shall resume my place in the bleachers, or as the British say*, behind the bike shed.
Carry on.
*At least, that's what wikipedia tells me they say.
I concede, and congratulate ye victors who understand the rules o'English better than I.
Job well done. Top notch.
I shall resume my place in the bleachers, or as the British say*, behind the bike shed.
Carry on.
*At least, that's what wikipedia tells me they say.
Thank you for getting that right (although I guess to be expected on the Grammar Nazi thread). Too many people say "me."
I concede, and congratulate ye victors who understand the rules o'English better than I.
Job well done. Top notch.
I shall resume my place in the bleachers, or as the British say*, behind the bike shed.
Carry on.
*At least, that's what wikipedia tells me they say.
Thank you for getting that right (although I guess to be expected on the Grammar Nazi thread). Too many people say "me."
This one is debatable. The old-school prescriptivists will tell you that "than" is a conjunction, in which case "I" was correct above; however, "than" can also be treated as a preposition, in which case "me" would be correct. The latter use is very standard in the year 2015.
Yet another example of how the rules of any language change over time.
Yet another example of how the rules of any language change over time.
Historically, well-known writers did not follow many of the prescriptivist rules which are taught by schoolteachers today. The claim that "than" is strictly a conjunction is an historical prescriptivist rule, but there's no evidence that it's actually an historical rule of the language.
Also noticed the two spaces after the full stops.
I've been on this forum for over three years and have posted here thousands of times. In all of that text, I challenge you to find a single instance of me using a single space between sentences. If you find one, it's a mistake.
I think most of recognize that the game is rigged to favor the elite minority.
The world is pyramid shaped, with a select few living off the backs of the squalid masses below them. This is just as true for Warren Buffet as it is for the average Walmart shopper, just at different scales. Buffet doesn't profit without an actively participatory consumer class, and you can't buy a $3 T-shirt without Vietnamese sweatshop labor. We all prosper in America because the third world is horrendously exploited.
If I were a man of deeper conviction, I could devote my life to changing this system. In reality I am a man of selfishly expedient optimization, and so I instead choose to learn to game the system, to join the investor class and thus perpetuate the gross injustice of this system simply because it can benefit me. This is the nature if capitalism and organized crime. Everyone sees it sucks, but as long as it sucks less for me than for you, we all continue to play.
Cathy where do you know this stuff from?
Well when you set a challenge someone is going to take it on. I found one Sol!
I concede, and congratulate ye victors who understand the rules o'English better than I.
Job well done. Top notch.
I shall resume my place in the bleachers, or as the British say*, behind the bike shed.
Carry on.
*At least, that's what wikipedia tells me they say.
Thank you for getting that right (although I guess to be expected on the Grammar Nazi thread). Too many people say "me."
This one is debatable. The old-school prescriptivists will tell you that "than" is a conjunction, in which case "I" was correct above; however, "than" can also be treated as a preposition, in which case "me" would be correct. The latter use is very standard in the year 2015.
Yet another example of how the rules of any language change over time.
The same way that unique originally meant "one of a kind," but now people have misused it so many times (under the old definition) that it has been degraded to mean rare. This is easily noticed when somebody says something is more unique than something else.
I personally do not like this change.
Another example is one I believe we discussed earlier on this thread: using gift as a verb. It used to be wrong to do so, but it seems to be generally accepted nowadays.
Side note: Is there a word in the English language for somebody who has lost stuff? (Guardians of the Galaxy movie reference)
I concede, and congratulate ye victors who understand the rules o'English better than I.
Job well done. Top notch.
I shall resume my place in the bleachers, or as the British say*, behind the bike shed.
Carry on.
*At least, that's what wikipedia tells me they say.
Thank you for getting that right (although I guess to be expected on the Grammar Nazi thread). Too many people say "me."
This one is debatable. The old-school prescriptivists will tell you that "than" is a conjunction, in which case "I" was correct above; however, "than" can also be treated as a preposition, in which case "me" would be correct. The latter use is very standard in the year 2015.
Yet another example of how the rules of any language change over time.
The same way that unique originally meant "one of a kind," but now people have misused it so many times (under the old definition) that it has been degraded to mean rare. This is easily noticed when somebody says something is more unique than something else.
I personally do not like this change.
Another example is one I believe we discussed earlier on this thread: using gift as a verb. It used to be wrong to do so, but it seems to be generally accepted nowadays.
Side note: Is there a word in the English language for somebody who has lost stuff? (Guardians of the Galaxy movie reference)
"Very unique" drives me up the wall.
I used to be quite a rigid proponent of the double space rule, but this article convinced me otherwise:+1
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html
Now I view it as an amusing flourish of the grammatical dilettante, like a comically exaggerated curtsy.
Carry on :D
I used to be quite a rigid proponent of the double space rule, but this article convinced me otherwise:+1
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html
Now I view it as an amusing flourish of the grammatical dilettante, like a comically exaggerated curtsy.
Carry on :D
That article, or one similar to it, changed my mind as well. I'm now in the single-space camp.
Arggh!
It's not "would of". What the hell does that mean?
It's "would have"; as in, "I would have been"
I'm sorry, I have seen this in three separate threads today. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.
Confession time: I often doublespace. It is an old habit left from manual typewriters.
Arggh!
It's not "would of". What the hell does that mean?
It's "would have"; as in, "I would have been"
I'm sorry, I have seen this in three separate threads today. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.
Confession time: I often doublespace. It is an old habit left from manual typewriters.
I unapologetically double space after periods. I get that it has become "wrong," but I am a very fast typist, and I only learned in the past couple of years that the standard had changed. I'm too old and too lazy to retrain myself.
And here's a new one, which I read on FB yesterday: "escape goat," instead of "scapegoat."
Arggh!
It's not "would of". What the hell does that mean?
It's "would have"; as in, "I would have been"
I'm sorry, I have seen this in three separate threads today. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.
Confession time: I often doublespace. It is an old habit left from manual typewriters.
I unapologetically double space after periods. I get that it has become "wrong," but I am a very fast typist, and I only learned in the past couple of years that the standard had changed. I'm too old and too lazy to retrain myself.
And here's a new one, which I read on FB yesterday: "escape goat," instead of "scapegoat."
Your Facebook friend better run after that goat.
Friend of a friend got an email saying he was busy because it was the end of their physical year.
So....they're done with all physical activity for the year? They plan on vegetating for the rest of the year?
This thread has mostly irritated me since I participated (who knew it would stay active for so long?), but this made me laugh. Thanks.Arggh!
It's not "would of". What the hell does that mean?
It's "would have"; as in, "I would have been"
I'm sorry, I have seen this in three separate threads today. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel much better now.
Confession time: I often doublespace. It is an old habit left from manual typewriters.
I unapologetically double space after periods. I get that it has become "wrong," but I am a very fast typist, and I only learned in the past couple of years that the standard had changed. I'm too old and too lazy to retrain myself.
And here's a new one, which I read on FB yesterday: "escape goat," instead of "scapegoat."
Your Facebook friend better run after that goat.
Friend of a friend got an email saying he was busy because it was the end of their physical year.
So....they're done with all physical activity for the year? They plan on vegetating for the rest of the year?
I propose that "physical year" become an official term. Definition: The period of time between the beginning of one's New Year's Resolution to exercise more, and the moment when one officially abandons said resolution.
Therefore, the end of the "physical year" for most people would be... January 2.
Google "the awful German language" by Mark Twain if you haven't read it yet. Or just search for sentences that end in ridiculousness like "haben sind gewesen gehabt haben geworden sein" to get a feel for the shenanigans.
Any language with a word that means an improvement that makes things worse can't be all bad. No, I never can remember the word. And I need it depressingly often.
I unapologetically double space after periods. I get that it has become "wrong," but I am a very fast typist, and I only learned in the past couple of years that the standard had changed.I haven't read the article yet, but on my iphone, when I double space, that's a cue for the messaging app to insert a (.) period. So I think that the double-spacers are still okay. And I promise to read the article later.
General opinions on double contractions?
Example I've probably used most: wouldn't've. As in, "Y'all wouldn't've gone to the movies if the weather was nice out."
General opinions on double contractions?
Example I've probably used most: wouldn't've. As in, "Y'all wouldn't've gone to the movies if the weather was nice out."
General opinions on double contractions?
Example I've probably used most: wouldn't've. As in, "Y'all wouldn't've gone to the movies if the weather was nice out."
General opinions on double contractions?
Example I've probably used most: wouldn't've. As in, "Y'all wouldn't've gone to the movies if the weather was nice out."
I have literally never seen double contractions before.
I wouldn't use them myself but I don't really have an opinion on whether they're right or not.
Facebook feed:
"Looks like the neckless I got you"
For me the biggest thing that irks me isn't one specific mistake (they're/there/their or loose/lose etc.) but repeated mistakes. I can overlook any typo done once or twice, though I'll usually still notice and cringe a little on the inside. What gets me is when people make the same mistake over and over. I tried reading gocurrycracker.com a few times and had to stop because they have a chronic issue with dropping periods from the last sentence in each paragraph. Once I noticed that it was all I could see and it drove me up the effing wall.
Oh, God, I thought that was just me. I can read GCC but I keep wanting to yell WHY DO YOU HATE USING PERIODS?
And more annoying shortened words I see:
Rezzies (reservations)
Vacay (vacation)
Resto (restaurant)
Luxe (deluxe)
Bae (baby)
Annoying indeed. I think these are all part of the adult baby-talk fad mentioned earlier ("veggie" is the one that is my pet peeve). People apparently think that baby talk will make then sound winsome and charming, instead of childish and grating. I keep hoping that they will come to their senses and that soon it will all go away.
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
Haha. Can't disagree with that.
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
Haha. Can't disagree with that.
Au contraire, my good chap. We are so cool the rest of the world simply drips with envy over our frozenness, n'est-ce pas?
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
Haha. Can't disagree with that.
Au contraire, my good chap. We are so cool the rest of the world simply drips with envy over our frozenness, n'est-ce pas?
Haha you can believe that if it makes you feel better XD
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
grammatical arrogance
How about the misuse of the term begging the question!
A few weeks ago, I saw someone write "come uppins" instead of "comeuppance."
FB is a constant source of amusement.
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar. No one here is cool. Sorry.
This is how I feel as well...but then I have met R@63 in real life and thought she was somewhat cool. I think I can resolve this conflict by forgiving her for participating in this thread because she was a university professor and comes by her grammatical arrogance somewhat honestly.
Not sure about the others though. :)
On Facebook:
"[The puppies'] mother was killed in a viscous Way"
I have no idea how you would kill a dog, or any living thing for that matter, in a viscous way...
I have no idea how you would kill a dog, or any living thing for that matter, in a viscous way...
Drown it in molasses? That is indeed cruel and vicious.It's happened before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood).
Drown it in molasses? That is indeed cruel and vicious.It's happened before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood).
grammatical arrogance
I'm sure this applies to some grammar Nazis but not to all.
For myself, it's about basic competency. The fundamentals. Not esoteric grammar rules or typos. This is true with grammar as with anything else. On the roads you expect people to have basic driving competency, and it doesn't make you arrogant.
Isn't grammar national socialism the same as Antimustachian Shame and Comedy? We're mocking people but deep down we wish they knew better.
I think most grammar nazis are just disheartened by the numbers of people who aren't competent with grammar/spelling. Like it's some kind of advanced skill.
You know what I dream of sometimes? Spelling and grammar moderators on the forum. Nothing mean or snarky, but they would just quietly edit people's posts to correct mistakes. People copy other people, and I think the general linguistic standard would improve if people read more correct writing. Hopefully the moderators would eventually become almost obsolete!
You know what I dream of sometimes? Spelling and grammar moderators on the forum. Nothing mean or snarky, but they would just quietly edit people's posts to correct mistakes. People copy other people, and I think the general linguistic standard would improve if people read more correct writing. Hopefully the moderators would eventually become almost obsolete!
Agreed! Also I finally figured out who your avatar is, Coco Chanel :)
shelivesthedream - You mean you'd fix stuff like this?
I got a rich people problem New
Started by XXXXXXX in Welcome and General Discussion
Just shoot me. Don't get me wrong, the OP's questions are valid, but the subject line is killing me. I want to live in your world, she...
Is 'I got' really incorrect and worse than 'I've got'?
I would love to be the grammar mod in charge of properly differentiating between 'jive' and 'jibe'. That mistake happens about twice a day here and it drives me nuts.
So as long as the poster means what you assume they mean - that is, you get to pick what they were trying to say and they don't - they've made a mistake.
Also, the "I got" example was a little trickier than the things I had in mind. I was thinking of "viola" for "voila" and "free reign" for "free rein". Things which are just WRONG whichever way you slice them. Or misuse of "there/their/they're"...Yeah, there's definitely plenty of that about.
Also, the "I got" example was a little trickier than the things I had in mind.
You know what I dream of sometimes? Spelling and grammar moderators on the forum. Nothing mean or snarky, but they would just quietly edit people's posts to correct mistakes. People copy other people, and I think the general linguistic standard would improve if people read more correct writing. Hopefully the moderators would eventually become almost obsolete!
Are you people serious? The grammar nazis want to create secret grammar police? You can practice grammar national socialism in the confines of your thread until you're blue in the face, but there's no way the rest of us are going to sit back and let you establish the grammar gestapo.You're correct, we need to change our political metaphor to something more palatable, how about Grammar Spring? Non-Violence Grammar? Slow Words Movement? Occupy English?
If there's going to be a secret grammar police, then make it the Grammar Inquisition, because...Are you people serious? The grammar nazis want to create secret grammar police? You can practice grammar national socialism in the confines of your thread until you're blue in the face, but there's no way the rest of us are going to sit back and let you establish the grammar gestapo.You're correct, we need to change our political metaphor to something more palatable, how about Grammar Spring? Non-Violence Grammar? Slow Words Movement? Occupy English?
If there's going to be a secret grammar police, then make it the Grammar Inquisition, because...Are you people serious? The grammar nazis want to create secret grammar police? You can practice grammar national socialism in the confines of your thread until you're blue in the face, but there's no way the rest of us are going to sit back and let you establish the grammar gestapo.You're correct, we need to change our political metaphor to something more palatable, how about Grammar Spring? Non-Violence Grammar? Slow Words Movement? Occupy English?
...nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition!
If there's going to be a secret grammar police, then make it the Grammar Inquisition, because...Are you people serious? The grammar nazis want to create secret grammar police? You can practice grammar national socialism in the confines of your thread until you're blue in the face, but there's no way the rest of us are going to sit back and let you establish the grammar gestapo.You're correct, we need to change our political metaphor to something more palatable, how about Grammar Spring? Non-Violence Grammar? Slow Words Movement? Occupy English?
...nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition!
since/sense/cents
I just spent way too long reading this entire thread and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned since/sense/cents. I have two friends that mix those up every time! "I haven't seen you sense last week", or even better "I haven't seen you cents forever".
I just spent way too long reading this entire thread and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned since/sense/cents. I have two friends that mix those up every time! "I haven't seen you sense last week", or even better "I haven't seen you cents forever".
OMFG NO. That cannot be real.
Here's my confession: When I'm talking, I'll say "drownding" instead of "drowning" and "demond" instead of "demon". For absolutely no reason. I know it's the wrong word. I would never type or write it that way. And it's not even like I can blame my upbringing because I'm fairly certain that my parents don't say those words incorrectly. I've been working on trying to fix them, but it's hard to change ingrained speech patterns. My dad inserts "r" into random words (mostly warshing and Warshington) which is a regional thing. Anyone know of a region that inserts "d" into random words?
Anyone know of a region that inserts "d" into random words?
I've heard drownded and spayded, I assume they meant drowned and spayed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34149177/harry-styles-proves-hes-a-stickler-for-good-grammar
This is the amusing moment Harry Styles corrected a One Direction fan's bad grammar after spotting her sign in the crowd at a show in the US.
The singer, 21, motioned for the banner reading 'Hi Harry. Your so nice' to be handed to him, before wasting no time in fixing the omission.
He took out a pen and added the missing apostrophe and letter 'e' to make it 'You're so nice'.
Hangry is when you're so hungry you're angry and need a snickers :)
Hangry is when you're so hungry you're angry and need a snickers :)
I don't watch TV that much so I must have missed that commercial. :D
Reviving the thread to point out a new thing that pings my Grammar Nazi--when the hell did "hangry" become a thing? I'm seeing it more and more. Seriously, is it that hard to type "hungry?" I knew it was a thing when Mrs. Frugalwoods used it; I literally said "oh, God, no, not you too."
Reviving the thread to point out a new thing that pings my Grammar Nazi--when the hell did "hangry" become a thing? I'm seeing it more and more. Seriously, is it that hard to type "hungry?" I knew it was a thing when Mrs. Frugalwoods used it; I literally said "oh, God, no, not you too."
What do you mean by "become a thing"? What does that even mean?
Reviving the thread to point out a new thing that pings my Grammar Nazi--when the hell did "hangry" become a thing? I'm seeing it more and more. Seriously, is it that hard to type "hungry?" I knew it was a thing when Mrs. Frugalwoods used it; I literally said "oh, God, no, not you too."
What do you mean by "become a thing"? What does that even mean?
When something "becomes a thing", to me it means that it's become popular enough somewhere to be used for communication without it necessarily having to be defined every time it's used. For instance, on Imgur, "catsnake" became a thing sometime in the last year. It's now just another (more entertaining) way to say "ferret".
I always find it funny when someone is correcting someone's grammar or spelling and makes several grammatical and spelling mistakes while doing so.
Actual quote from the FB page of a "friend" from high school:
"Just wondering how many people stayed up to watch the lunar eclipse I tried to get pics of it not so good need more money for bigger lense lol"
That is all.
That's a neologism and a fun one at that. ...
A descriptivist might argue that all of the "errors" we discuss in this thread are really just emerging usages that haven't widely caught on yet, which is actually true to a certain extent. Whether something is perceived as an error or as a neologism depends in large part on the audience.
A descriptivist might argue that all of the "errors" we discuss in this thread are really just emerging usages that haven't widely caught on yet, which is actually true to a certain extent. Whether something is perceived as an error or as a neologism depends in large part on the audience.
Yes. Although presumably intent and shared knowledge contribute, too. If somebody says "feels" instead of "feelings", they know that they're playing with the language, and expect the audience to know it, too. Whereas if they say "give it to him and I", they're either misunderstanding a prescriptive rule, but contributing to an emerging usage, or that (emerged?) usage is the only one they know.
A descriptivist might argue that all of the "errors" we discuss in this thread are really just emerging usages that haven't widely caught on yet, which is actually true to a certain extent. Whether something is perceived as an error or as a neologism depends in large part on the audience.
Yes. Although presumably intent and shared knowledge contribute, too. If somebody says "feels" instead of "feelings", they know that they're playing with the language, and expect the audience to know it, too. Whereas if they say "give it to him and I", they're either misunderstanding a prescriptive rule, but contributing to an emerging usage, or that (emerged?) usage is the only one they know.
Not grammar but pronunciation - nobody seems to pronounce the "i" in the word "verbiage". It comes out "verbage". Drives me nuts.
Not grammar but pronunciation - nobody seems to pronounce the "i" in the word "verbiage". It comes out "verbage". Drives me nuts.
Is there maybe a dialect thing here, or a distinction I'm not aware of? I hear the same thing with "foliage". Maybe it's by analogy with carriage and marriage?
The recurring discussion here of whether people who do things different are breaking rules or using different rules reminded me of a paper I heard recently, about "u-fronting", the way young folks and southerners and Californians pronounce words like "dude" with their tongue raised farther forward in the mouth, so that sometimes people write it "dewd" to show the pronunciation they mean. The rules for it are actually quite cool, so I thought my fellow word nerds would enjoy it:
1. Pronounce all words where old Northerners say "oo" (rude, moon, toot) as "ew" (rewd, mewn, tewt)...
2. ...unless they're followed by an L (i.e., pool, tool, fool, don't become pewl, tewl, fewl)...
3. ...unless that word with a following L is "cool" (i.e., cool does become kewl)...
4. ...unless that "cool" actually means the temperature (i.e., temperature cool doesn't become kewl).
Language is fun!
I imagine this might have been mentioned further up, but I have seen this so many times in the past few days, and it's driving me crazy:
Why is it so hard for people to make a plural possessive?! I just don't understand how adults don't know that if you're talking about the house that belongs to your parents, it's your parents' house, not your parent's house!!!
Why is it so hard for people to make a plural possessive?! I just don't understand how adults don't know that if you're talking about the house that belongs to your parents, it's your parents' house, not your parent's house!!!
Hangry is when you're so hungry you're angry and need a snickers :)
I don't watch TV that much so I must have missed that commercial. :D
It was not born on TV, keep your smugness in check; "hangry" has been around quite awhile, it's a combination of hungry and angry, minus the Snickers bit.
Hangry is when you're so hungry you're angry and need a snickers :)
I don't watch TV that much so I must have missed that commercial. :D
It was not born on TV, keep your smugness in check; "hangry" has been around quite awhile, it's a combination of hungry and angry, minus the Snickers bit.
Hope you didn't hurt yourself jumping to conclusions like that. :D
Re: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/ignore-the-retirement-alarmists-the-4-rule-is-imminently-safe/
Didn't know that it was unsafe now - good to see that it soon will be....
'So' has already been banned once by LSSU back in 1999, in the context of a verb modifier ('I am so done with this'), but organizers felt it merited a second appearance due to its change in use.
According to Bob Forrest, from Tempe, Arizona: 'Currently, it is being overused as the first word in the answer to ANY question.
'For instance, "How did you learn to play the piano?" Answer: "So my dad was in a classical music club..."'
Thomas Weiss, from Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, added: 'Frequently used to begin a sentence, particularly in response to a question, this tiresome and grammatically incorrect replacement for "Like," or "Um," is even more irksome. It hurts my ears, every single time I hear it!'
Finally, taking a somewhat sarcastic tone, David Simpson, of Laurel, Maryland, said: 'So it's getting really annoying. So can we please put a stop to this?'
"So" as the first word in reply to a question has made the Lake Superior State University 2016 Banned Words List (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3381523/So-manspreading-vape-Academics-publish-list-banned-words-2016-word-like-banished.html).Quote'So' has already been banned once by LSSU back in 1999, in the context of a verb modifier ('I am so done with this'), but organizers felt it merited a second appearance due to its change in use.
According to Bob Forrest, from Tempe, Arizona: 'Currently, it is being overused as the first word in the answer to ANY question.
'For instance, "How did you learn to play the piano?" Answer: "So my dad was in a classical music club..."'
Thomas Weiss, from Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, added: 'Frequently used to begin a sentence, particularly in response to a question, this tiresome and grammatically incorrect replacement for "Like," or "Um," is even more irksome. It hurts my ears, every single time I hear it!'
Finally, taking a somewhat sarcastic tone, David Simpson, of Laurel, Maryland, said: 'So it's getting really annoying. So can we please put a stop to this?'
I imagine this might have been mentioned further up, but I have seen this so many times in the past few days, and it's driving me crazy:
Why is it so hard for people to make a plural possessive?! I just don't understand how adults don't know that if you're talking about the house that belongs to your parents, it's your parents' house, not your parent's house!!!
NOOOOoooooo! I use "so," at the beginning of sentences. "Therefore" is so much longer. So unhappy. Oh well........
Yes the "so unhappy" was on purpose ;-)
I imagine this might have been mentioned further up, but I have seen this so many times in the past few days, and it's driving me crazy:
Why is it so hard for people to make a plural possessive?! I just don't understand how adults don't know that if you're talking about the house that belongs to your parents, it's your parents' house, not your parent's house!!!
Saved me today. It felt somehow natural to type it 's, but then I recalled this thread. Fixed s' and I felt just a little wiser for once.
NOOOOoooooo! I use "so," at the beginning of sentences. "Therefore" is so much longer. So unhappy. Oh well........
Yes the "so unhappy" was on purpose ;-)
Well there are plenty of words left :)
I can't believe they didn't also ban "right?" which often finishes sentences begun with "so".
Were it up to me, I would have also banned "awesome" and derivatives (I nearly quit an audiobook today over repeated use of "awesome" and "awesomeness").
NOOOOoooooo! I use "so," at the beginning of sentences. "Therefore" is so much longer.
What doesn't make sense (at least to me) is when someone begins a conversation with the word "so". In fact, I have seen many threads here in which the very first post starts with "so". The person might write, "So, I am 35 years old and want to retire by 40." Why begin that sentence with "so"?
it really does fill a gap in the system.
it really does fill a gap in the system.
No :)
It's meaningless throat-clearing that makes the reply to a question sound unresponsive. If it "means" anything, it's "I'm going to say what I'd intended to say, regardless of your question".
ETA: I see you were referring to using "so, " in writing specifically. It's even worse in that case because it's even more obvious that it's useless; it can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence at all. It adds nothing. And the writer can't even use a verbal tic as an excuse.
You mean a boor?
When a comment begins with "So..." or its evil cousin, "Ooh Story Time!" I immediately skip to the next comment.
Such constructs are red flag. They're used by callow bores to dress up interminable burbling. Pass.
Writing those sentences felt awfully cynical. However, they honestly convey how I feel when I see posts starting with "So..."
Do you know what annoys me more than any grammatical error in recent times? People's tendency to use "then" instead of "than".
"...earning less then their parents".
"...working more then 40 hours a week".
It's fucking THAN, people!!! Then refers to time.
*sigh*
I'd love to know what annoys others. Just so I can put my little peeve into perspective.
When a comment begins with "So..." or its evil cousin, "Ooh Story Time!" I immediately skip to the next comment.
Such constructs are red flag. They're used by callow bores to dress up interminable burbling. Pass.
Writing those sentences felt awfully cynical. However, they honestly convey how I feel when I see posts starting with "So..."
I think I am "guilty" of starting a sentence like this on occasion. Huh. Little did I know the irritation I may have been unleashing...
"ROTH IRA".
Roth is not an acronym. It is named after the late Senator Roth who sponsored the legislation that established the Roth IRA.
Now granted, some people are capitalizing Roth for emphasis, but there are still quite a few people who capitalize it regardless.
"ROTH IRA".
Roth is not an acronym. It is named after the late Senator Roth who sponsored the legislation that established the Roth IRA.
Now granted, some people are capitalizing Roth for emphasis, but there are still quite a few people who capitalize it regardless.
Here's one I hate also. It's when people say irregardless, which is not a word. It's just "regardless"... But if irregardless was a word it would be a double negative which would mean the opposite of what they are trying to say, so just stop it already.
Furthermore there is the statement "I could care less". When I hear that I inevitably reply oh, so you DO care a bit? Obviously if you could care less then you must care at some level because it is possible for you to care less than you do right now. Perhaps you meant to say "I couldn't care less"?
So, irregardless, you defiantly reminded me.
It annoys me when people say, "I resemble that remark." When someone says this, they are almost never attempting to be humorous and they really mean to say, "I resent that remark."
I say "I resemble that remark" and I mean it. It's so much easier to stand in the ugly light of day. I'd rather make fun of myself than make fun of you :)
It's meaningless throat-clearing that makes the reply to a question sound unresponsive. If it "means" anything, it's "I'm going to say what I'd intended to say, regardless of your question".
I work with a team of developers from India, for whatever reason they spell out didn't as dint ALL THE TIME in email.... GRRR!Could this be text speak? I'm not savvy enough to the ways of the young folk, but I do see an uptick in the substitution of prolly for probably. And I think that comes from the language of text. God help us.
It's prolly not that.
I have a darling husband who has many unique colloquialisms that frankly make my ears bleed. But just recently I've learned to keep my irritation to myself as no amount of correction or encouragement changes things. I am a slow learner. We've been married 12 years now.
Here are a few examples -
wheelbarrel
bob wire fence
joyce and jouyces (for joist and joists)
That's just the beginning folks.
One of my all time favorites comes from my brother in law. He mispronounces misdemeanor as Mr. Meanor, at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Gotta love 'em.
That's a relatively common usage that I've definitely heard dozens of times. Urban dictionary makes references to it in a few definitions and a google search of "ignorant as rude" turns up quite a few related discussions too. So while you may not like it, it isn't something your husband just made up or something. (Fwiw, I don't mind this usage at all.)
That's a relatively common usage that I've definitely heard dozens of times. Urban dictionary makes references to it in a few definitions and a google search of "ignorant as rude" turns up quite a few related discussions too. So while you may not like it, it isn't something your husband just made up or something. (Fwiw, I don't mind this usage at all.)
Hmm, guess I'll chalk this up in my "learn something everyday" column.
Someone at work today put a notice on our electronic noticeboard. They were selling some furniture.
Including a Chester Draws.
*sigh*
Someone at work today put a notice on our electronic noticeboard. They were selling some furniture.I've always wanted one of those!
Including a Chester Draws.
*sigh*
I have a darling husband who has many unique colloquialisms that frankly make my ears bleed. But just recently I've learned to keep my irritation to myself as no amount of correction or encouragement changes things. I am a slow learner. We've been married 12 years now.
Here are a few examples -
wheelbarrel
bob wire fence
joyce and jouyces (for joist and joists)
That's just the beginning folks.
One of my all time favorites comes from my brother in law. He mispronounces misdemeanor as Mr. Meanor, at least that's what it sounds like to me.
Gotta love 'em.
My darling husband is generally good with pronunciation (although it was really funny when he said the word "adolescent" with the stress on the second syllable rather than the first and third! I still kid him about that). But he has some interesting word choices. The worst is when he starts calling people "ignorant" when the people are actually just "rude" or "mean." For example, a man purposely cuts in line, so my husband gets really angry and starts saying the guy is "really ignorant."
I always think of the Princess Bride and want to say to him, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means!"
I'm usually on here defending new or non-standard uses ('cause most of them make sociolinguistic sense or have a long history and are "wrong" only in the sense that they differ from what we're used to), but today I'm here to bitch and moan: Yesterday I heard a guy in the airport lounge tell someone on the phone, "I don't have much time... just give me the details." No. Don't do that. Think before you speak.
I actually used to hear that one a lot more, but I thought it had died out due to ridicule or forced sterilization of its users or something.
My non-grammar-related complaint concerns the use of the word "mortgage".
I'd be happy if people used "mortgage [loan] payment" to mean only the Principal and Interest portion that ends when the mortgage [loan] is paid, rather than include any escrowed tax, insurance, HOA, etc. that continues forever. ...
I think the term "mortgage payment" could be construed....
I'd like to continue in the tradition of this ostensibly grammar-related thread by posting a purely prescriptive complaint about the use of language, even though my complaint actually has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar, a quality it shares with most of the complaints posted in this thread. My non-grammar-related complaint concerns the use of the word "mortgage".
All across this forum, I see posts where people use the term "mortgage" to mean a loan obtained to purchase a house or to refinance another such loan. That is not the technical meaning of "mortgage". Rather, "[a] mortgage is an interest in real property that secures a creditor's right to repayment". Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 US 78 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=358626760378712874), 82 (1991). The exact nature of the interest varies by jurisdiction, but one thing is consistent: a mortgage is not a debt; it is "merely security for a debt". Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 86 AD 3d 274 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913), 280 (NY App Div 2011) (quoting another case).
In my posts on the forum, I usually use the phrase "mortgage loan" to refer to the debt secured by a mortgage, but that is not a term of art; variants would also be acceptable. The reason I complain here about using "mortgage" itself to mean "mortgage loan" is that the mortgage is an analytically distinct construct from the debt. Using the same term for each of them is confusing.
Using the same term for each of them is confusing.Really? When someone says "I'm working really hard to pay off my mortgage early" you can't intuit that they're referring to the loan and not the bank's security interest?
For 1 there weighting in the overall market is enormous so most people have money in those stocks and hence panic sell or the companies tank and there losing there asses... Secondly airlines are usually locked into contracts a year or two behind this so haven't caught the luxury of the reduced cost of barrels. The market was/exhausted so this just perpetuates the sell off. I saw a chart yesterday that not one of the last 5 recessions started because of low fuel costs but never the less that's why it effects the stock market. Even if our economy is doing well it hurts the country's we trade or sell to that largely are dependent on oil profits as well as other mineral aspects. Like Brazil is tanked so its not just oil as its almost all material/mineral stocks. There are alot more aspects to it as well.
My boss said, "for all intensive purposes" which made me laugh inwardly.
My friend sent me an email that read, "my next store neighbor has ammonia" which made me laugh outwardly.
My sister always says, "I seen him..." I keep telling her the word 'seen' requires the linking verb 'have' in front of it. She is a hillbilly.
Also, what has happened to -ly in our language? I didn't run quick...I ran quickly.
They don't own the house, you do.
I'd like to continue in the tradition of this ostensibly grammar-related thread by posting a purely prescriptive complaint about the use of language, even though my complaint actually has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar, a quality it shares with most of the complaints posted in this thread. My non-grammar-related complaint concerns the use of the word "mortgage".
All across this forum, I see posts where people use the term "mortgage" to mean a loan obtained to purchase a house or to refinance another such loan. That is not the technical meaning of "mortgage". Rather, "[a] mortgage is an interest in real property that secures a creditor's right to repayment". Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 US 78 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=358626760378712874), 82 (1991). The exact nature of the interest varies by jurisdiction, but one thing is consistent: a mortgage is not a debt; it is "merely security for a debt". Bank of NY v. Silverberg, 86 AD 3d 274 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5205332699573358913), 280 (NY App Div 2011) (quoting another case).
In my posts on the forum, I usually use the phrase "mortgage loan" to refer to the debt secured by a mortgage, but that is not a term of art; variants would also be acceptable. The reason I complain here about using "mortgage" itself to mean "mortgage loan" is that the mortgage is an analytically distinct construct from the debt. Using the same term for each of them is confusing.
This post completely and utterly overwhelmed me. As an intellectual I am finished. I will fight no more forever.
Why can't people use apostrophes correctly anymore? My theory is that with the rise of acronyms like DVD and BFF, people think apostrophes suddenly denote pluralization. But, it's [it has!] leaked into everyday words like "company's" to denote more than one company. WTF??? I see these mistakes all over the forums and in web articles. I even saw one in the Washington Post the other day. Ugh.I'm clear on all of that, but whatever happened to "it's" to indicate possession? Is that gone with the wind or were the nuns (and their rulers) at my Catholic school wrong?
This is why I always type CDs or BFFs or DVDs. Not CD's. Unless I am talking about the CD's quality of audio, or some such. "I have many CDs that I should sell because I don't listen to them anymore." "My daughter's BFFs are coming over to play."
Also:Those are the weird ones.
- It's means it is or it has
- Its means "belongs to it"
- Who's means who is or who has
- Whose means who this belongs to
I'm clear on all of that, but whatever happened to "it's" to indicate possession? Is that gone with the wind or were the nuns (and their rulers) at my Catholic school wrong?
Why can't people use apostrophes correctly anymore? My theory is that with the rise of acronyms like DVD and BFF, people think apostrophes suddenly denote pluralization. But, it's [it has!] leaked into everyday words like "company's" to denote more than one company. WTF??? I see these mistakes all over the forums and in web articles. I even saw one in the Washington Post the other day. Ugh.I'm clear on all of that, but whatever happened to "it's" to indicate possession? Is that gone with the wind or were the nuns (and their rulers) at my Catholic school wrong?
This is why I always type CDs or BFFs or DVDs. Not CD's. Unless I am talking about the CD's quality of audio, or some such. "I have many CDs that I should sell because I don't listen to them anymore." "My daughter's BFFs are coming over to play."
Also:Those are the weird ones.
- It's means it is or it has
- Its means "belongs to it"
- Who's means who is or who has
- Whose means who this belongs to
God, what a relief!Why can't people use apostrophes correctly anymore? My theory is that with the rise of acronyms like DVD and BFF, people think apostrophes suddenly denote pluralization. But, it's [it has!] leaked into everyday words like "company's" to denote more than one company. WTF??? I see these mistakes all over the forums and in web articles. I even saw one in the Washington Post the other day. Ugh.I'm clear on all of that, but whatever happened to "it's" to indicate possession? Is that gone with the wind or were the nuns (and their rulers) at my Catholic school wrong?
This is why I always type CDs or BFFs or DVDs. Not CD's. Unless I am talking about the CD's quality of audio, or some such. "I have many CDs that I should sell because I don't listen to them anymore." "My daughter's BFFs are coming over to play."
Also:Those are the weird ones.
- It's means it is or it has
- Its means "belongs to it"
- Who's means who is or who has
- Whose means who this belongs to
They were wrong. "It's" does not in any context indicate possession.
God, what a relief!
They don't own the house, you do.
More or less, yes, but as I noted in my earlier post (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/grammar-nazi/550/), "[t]he exact nature of the [bank's] interest [in the property] varies by jurisdiction". At common law, "a legal mortgage of freehold property was made by the same form of assurance and framed on the same principles as an absolute conveyance, subject, however, to a proviso for redemption". Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol 77 (2016), ¶ 161 [free link not available, but PDF attached].
In other words, at common law, a mortgage was literally a deed through which the purchaser of the property conveyed legal title to the bank, but retained equitable title in the sense that if the purchaser paid off the loan in full, she would have the right to compel the bank to re-convey legal title to her. This substantially remains the law in certain US states. E.g., US Bank National Association v. Ibanez, 458 Mass 637 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4569784280786262124), 649 (Supreme Jud Ct 2011) ("In ... Massachusetts, a mortgage is a transfer of legal title in a property to secure a debt. Therefore, when a person borrows money to purchase a home and gives the lender a mortgage, the homeowner-mortgagor retains only equitable title in the home; the legal title is held by the mortgagee.") (citations omitted).
Of course, other jurisdictions use a different system where the bank's security interest takes the form of a lien rather than the form of ownership of legal title. For example, in Illinois, a mortgage does not convey legal title to the creditor. See generally Maniez v. Citibank, 937 NE 2d 237 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16531343459661089756), 247 (IL App Ct 2010), citing Harms v. Sprague, 105 Ill 2d 215 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14617088689512283974), 223 (Supreme Ct 1984).
with the same meaning as "uh," as an initial attention-getter. For example, "So, do you want to go get some lunch?"
with the same meaning as "uh," as an initial attention-getter. For example, "So, do you want to go get some lunch?"
This is why it's so annoying to me. Like you say, it's an icebreaker, an attention-getter. We've all used it like that. Imagine an awkward situation where nobody is talking and you say "Sooo... how 'bout those Raiders?" or whatever. But that's precisely why it makes no sense as the beginning of an answer to a direct question. In that case you don't need an icebreaker or an attention-getter, you were just asked a direct question. The question itself is your opening. That's why it feels grating and inappropriate.
People who say things like "All sheep are not white" when what they really mean is "not all sheep are white.
with the same meaning as "uh," as an initial attention-getter. For example, "So, do you want to go get some lunch?"
This is why it's so annoying to me. Like you say, it's an icebreaker, an attention-getter. We've all used it like that. Imagine an awkward situation where nobody is talking and you say "Sooo... how 'bout those Raiders?" or whatever. But that's precisely why it makes no sense as the beginning of an answer to a direct question. In that case you don't need an icebreaker or an attention-getter, you were just asked a direct question. The question itself is your opening. That's why it feels grating and inappropriate.
When someone asks you something -- say, "tell me about x", do you not have any sort of introductory verbal tic that starts you out as you launch into the story? "Well,..", "Um,...", "Okay, here's what happened...", "So..."
Nothing at all? Ever? You simply launch into the story? If so, I think you are quite unusual. The only people I hear in my life who do not usually do this are on the autism spectrum. Have been wondering why that is, but anyway...
I listen to a ton of public radio, and I notice that whenever a guest is asked to tell a story or respond to a question with an opinion, they almost always (as in probably 99% of the time) start with one of these leader words.
Also, misplacement of the word "just" to mean "only". As in, saying: "It's just not for breakfast anymore" when they mean "It's not just for breakfast anymore." I am hearing this more and more lately, and it's making me juts.
People who say things like "All sheep are not white" when what they really mean is "not all sheep are white.
Yes!
Also, misplacement of the word "just" to mean "only". As in, saying: "It's just not for breakfast anymore" when they mean "It's not just for breakfast anymore." I am hearing this more and more lately, and it's making me juts.
Just people don't realize the placement affects the meaning.Also, misplacement of the word "just" to mean "only". As in, saying: "It's just not for breakfast anymore" when they mean "It's not just for breakfast anymore." I am hearing this more and more lately, and it's making me juts.
Thank you for this one, I notice it too. People just don't realize the placement affects the meaning.
People don't just realize the placement affects the meaning.
People don't realize the placement just affects the meaning.
People don't realize the placement affects just the meaning.
...I'm confused - your username is TheBuddha, but your avatar is Bobby Hill.
...I'm confused - your username is TheBuddha, but your avatar is Bobby Hill.
Sorry to necropost, everyone who is following this thread, but I have seen this so many times in the last few days and I just can't take it any more:
IT'S AFFECT, YOU DUMBASS, NOT EFFECT. FOR FUCK'S OWN SAKE.
(Phew. Better now.)
Thank you for reviving this thread. I have missed it!
Also, when referring to money, it's PRINCIPAL, not PRINCIPLE.
Just remember, money is your friend (PAL).
In school we learned, "The person in charge of our school is the principal, and he is your pal". It still works if you drag it into modern times, complete with gender neutrality.Thank you for reviving this thread. I have missed it!
Also, when referring to money, it's PRINCIPAL, not PRINCIPLE.
Just remember, money is your friend (PAL).
I seem to be in a corrective/smirking mood, so I fixed your submission for you! I need to get out more.
I once went to an elementary school (regional boundaries forced me to change schools), in which the girls there completely overused "like".
Example: "So you know how, uh, like, apple, like, released the new iphone 6? It has, like, so many features! I, like, love it!
^ That drove me nuts. Half the time they used "like" two or three times in a row. That is why I never use "like" when I type.
Also, another bad habit is how kids these days will begin their sentences, and say a section of the sentence, arrive at a comma, and say "um", say another couple words, and then you guessed it - "um".
WHAT IS WRONG WITH KIDS THESE DAYS?!?!
WHAT IS WRONG WITH KIDS THESE DAYS?!?!What drives me a bit nuts these days is the constant "up speak?" Y'know, how after like, every few words? They're like, asking a question? As if they need constant approval?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH KIDS THESE DAYS?!?!What drives me a bit nuts these days is the constant "up speak?" Y'know, how after like, every few words? They're like, asking a question? As if they need constant approval?
I once went to an elementary school (regional boundaries forced me to change schools), in which the girls there completely overused "like".
Example: "So you know how, uh, like, apple, like, released the new iphone 6? It has, like, so many features! I, like, love it!
^ That drove me nuts. Half the time they used "like" two or three times in a row. That is why I never use "like" when I type.
Also, another bad habit is how kids these days will begin their sentences, and say a section of the sentence, arrive at a comma, and say "um", say another couple words, and then you guessed it - "um".
WHAT IS WRONG WITH KIDS THESE DAYS?!?!
Not enough GrammarNazi'sNazis.
Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police. ;)
Shelivesthedream
Look at all the posts! Obviously we have missed this thread. May it live long and prosper.
English is my second language, therefore I'm apologizing in advance for any forthcoming grammar errors, if any.
One thing that irritates me to no end is the use of the word because, to cancel out the need for an explanation or details.
Don't be a fucking jerk and speak/type/text the correct information you dick.
Also, please correct my grammar anytime you see an error on my part. I will be forever grateful for your help.
One good turn deserves another:
https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc
Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police. ;)
Somewhere on the Forums is a story about a union grievance that started because of the confusion caused by a missing comma (the Oxford comma). Punctuation matters, as the victim of the homicidal panda can testify. I loves me my commas.*
*Yes I know that is a grammatically incorrect sentence, it is vernacular. It is hard to hug a comma, but I will try, here goes:
{{{{{,}}}}}
Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police. ;)
Somewhere on the Forums is a story about a union grievance that started because of the confusion caused by a missing comma (the Oxford comma). Punctuation matters, as the victim of the homicidal panda can testify. I loves me my commas.*
*Yes I know that is a grammatically incorrect sentence, it is vernacular. It is hard to hug a comma, but I will try, here goes:
{{{{{,}}}}}
Is this the story? DH passed the link on to me.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/16/lack-oxford-comma-costs-maine-company-millions-overtime-dispute/BIxK837fA2C06qavQMDs5J/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/03/16/lack-oxford-comma-costs-maine-company-millions-overtime-dispute/BIxK837fA2C06qavQMDs5J/story.html)
Not enough GrammarNazi'sNazis.
Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police. ;)
GuessTypo?
Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.
Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.
Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25749.0;attach=34383;image)
Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.
Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25749.0;attach=34383;image)
And yet, http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative (http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative)
Did you not read your own link? It provides the same two definitions to inoperable that google does.Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.
Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25749.0;attach=34383;image)
And yet, http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative (http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative)
Did you not read your own link? It provides the same two definitions to inoperable that google does.Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.
Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
(https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=25749.0;attach=34383;image)
And yet, http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative (http://wikidiff.com/inoperable/inoperative)
never understand this kind of people...
there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"
never understand this kind of people...
there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"
never understand this kind of people...
there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"
"Sneak peak" drives me crazy!
"Sneak peak" drives me crazy!
You don't like those seamounts that suddenly break the surface?
"Sneak peak" drives me crazy!
You don't like those seamounts that suddenly break the surface?
Tectonically speaking, those types of sneaky peaks are actually quite interesting!
Peek.
Peak.
Pique.
Language is both a virus and a weapon. Please use it responsibly.
I also have found myself substituting won for one. Is this a typing-brain thing? or an Alzheimer's thing? Should I be concerned about won/one?
I also have found myself substituting won for one. Is this a typing-brain thing? or an Alzheimer's thing? Should I be concerned about won/one?
This is the worse thread ever!
This is the worse thread ever!
This reminded me of how often I hear people say "If worse comes to worse".
I think this happened around the time they stopped reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and teaching cursive writing. Hell in a handbags kettle, I tell you!This is the worse thread ever!
This reminded me of how often I hear people say "If worse comes to worse".
So common now. I think someone stopped teaching bad, worse, worst in school! kids today don't seem to know .
But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
Maybe it's because most people don't read much, so they never see the words as they're written.
Maybe it's because most people don't read much, so they never see the words as they're written.
I have the opposite problem. I see words, but never hear them pronounced. When I finally hear the word, it's not how I imagined it.
Howdy Neighbor, I used to live on Bentwood Drive. (A few blocks away from Hunt Tract).But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
I think it's more to do with people repeating what they think they're hearing. I just read posts on both the Lexus and Cadillac forums where people complained about their car having a "shutter" at certain speeds. I haven't seen a car with shutters outside of Mad Max movies.
We also have a neighbor who keeps posting about events in Hunt Track. She lives in Hunt Tract.
Maybe it's because most people don't read much, so they never see the words as they're written.
Maybe it's because most people don't read much, so they never see the words as they're written.
I have the opposite problem. I see words, but never hear them pronounced. When I finally hear the word, it's not how I imagined it.
This is true of my husband, as well. He has quite an extensive vocabulary -- probably bigger than mine is. But over the years, we have discovered a number of words he has only read and never heard, so has stumbled over pronunciations in conversations with me.
Howdy Neighbor, I used to live on Bentwood Drive. (A few blocks away from Hunt Tract).
The funniest one I remember was reading Rendezvous with Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke. I was maybe eleven, and pronounced rendezvous just the way it was spelled.
The funniest one I remember was reading Rendezvous with Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke. I was maybe eleven, and pronounced rendezvous just the way it was spelled.
I'm glad I'm not the only one! I did the same thing, with the same book, at about the same age.
Or hoeing has a new meaning? I can't tell if you're being witty or don't know the other meaning, either way your post deserves a response.But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
When I was a very small child -- probably like six or seven -- I had a picture book that had the word Chicago in it. I knew from context that it was a town, but I had never heard of a place called CHICK-a-go.
Because of this book and reading it silently to myself only, it took me a ridiculously long time to associate the town whose name was written CHICK-a-go with the city pronounced shi-KAH-go.
Is it correct because it has been used incorrectly so often that it is just accepted now? and what is the other meaning of "hoeing". Do you mean "ho" as in a slang form of whore? I'm so lost.Or hoeing has a new meaning? I can't tell if you're being witty or don't know the other meaning, either way your post deserves a response.But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
It depends on whether you are a prescriptive linguist or a descriptive linguist. Language is constantly evolving. Take the use of the subjunctive. Is it "If I were a rich man" or "If I was a rich man"? I learned to say it the first way, but when I ask people which one is correct, most tell me that both sound right.The first musical I ever saw was "Fiddler On the Roof", so I know which version sounds right to me and who's singing it, lol.
It depends on whether you are a prescriptive linguist or a descriptive linguist. Language is constantly evolving. Take the use of the subjunctive. Is it "If I were a rich man" or "If I was a rich man"? I learned to say it the first way, but when I ask people which one is correct, most tell me that both sound right.I saw something about forensic speech analysis for crime analysis and I think it was 12 or 13% of English speakers use the subjunctive tense and those are usually considered upper income and from highly educated backgrounds. That's why I love those things -- because experts (and I'm not one) can tell so much about people just from how they speak. But I don't know if the same will be possible after people who are born texting start to rule the world.
A hoe (or ho) is the slang form of whore. A tough road to hoe means the ho is having a tough time doing business, just like the original meant the field was tough to cultivate.Is it correct because it has been used incorrectly so often that it is just accepted now? and what is the other meaning of "hoeing". Do you mean "ho" as in a slang form of whore? I'm so lost.Or hoeing has a new meaning? I can't tell if you're being witty or don't know the other meaning, either way your post deserves a response.But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
Anyway, when does a misuse of a word or phrase become so common that it changes the meaning or adds an alternate meaning to the word or phrase?
I hear literally is an example, but I don't accept it. What's next? Irregardless because so many people make the error? How are we going to continue to judge others if language is no longer a differentiator? (Just kidding. Sorta)
Its started already. Movies and music from the USA do more to influence and unify the English language than anything else. I grew up with certain regional words that were replaced by their American versions; you can tell when people started getting cable TV by their use of certain words. Backwater parts still use the old terms, people with the means to afford cable use the American terms.It depends on whether you are a prescriptive linguist or a descriptive linguist. Language is constantly evolving. Take the use of the subjunctive. Is it "If I were a rich man" or "If I was a rich man"? I learned to say it the first way, but when I ask people which one is correct, most tell me that both sound right.I saw something about forensic speech analysis for crime analysis and I think it was 12 or 13% of English speakers use the subjunctive tense and those are usually considered upper income and from highly educated backgrounds. That's why I love those things -- because experts (and I'm not one) can tell so much about people just from how they speak. But I don't know if the same will be possible after people who are born texting start to rule the world.
When my brother was young, he was going to join the For-ee-jin Lee-jin.
I was planning a trip to Yo-sem-ite.
When my brother was young, he was going to join the For-ee-jin Lee-jin.
I was planning a trip to Yo-sem-ite.
I remember pronouncing it yohs-might and everyone laughed. Then everyone was shocked that I didn't know what in heaven's name yoh-seh-me-tea (pronunciation here) was. Since, I wasn't born in the U.S, I'd never heard about it. The spelling is very misleading
When my brother was young, he was going to join the For-ee-jin Lee-jin.
I was planning a trip to Yo-sem-ite.
I remember pronouncing it yohs-might and everyone laughed. Then everyone was shocked that I didn't know what in heaven's name yoh-seh-me-tea (pronunciation here) was. Since, I wasn't born in the U.S, I'd never heard about it. The spelling is very misleading
I hear ya. I did grow up in the U.S. and I've always had trouble with Yosemite.
Haha. Sorry prariestash, I am an "urbanite" and can safely say that I have never heard anyone use the slang word "ho" as a verb and certainly not to describe how difficult their job is! I am familiar with the slang use of the word, but that doesn't translate into another version of the saying. No, what you described really is a misuse of the phrase, coupled with an attempt to legitimize it. Really? Have you ever heard the phrase "I'm going to go ho this road"? Well, okay, but it's a tough one! Ha. That is ludicrous. I think this is an actual egg corn.A hoe (or ho) is the slang form of whore. A tough road to hoe means the ho is having a tough time doing business, just like the original meant the field was tough to cultivate.Is it correct because it has been used incorrectly so often that it is just accepted now? and what is the other meaning of "hoeing". Do you mean "ho" as in a slang form of whore? I'm so lost.Or hoeing has a new meaning? I can't tell if you're being witty or don't know the other meaning, either way your post deserves a response.But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
Anyway, when does a misuse of a word or phrase become so common that it changes the meaning or adds an alternate meaning to the word or phrase?
I hear literally is an example, but I don't accept it. What's next? Irregardless because so many people make the error? How are we going to continue to judge others if language is no longer a differentiator? (Just kidding. Sorta)
A phrase is acceptable when the person hearing it understands its meaning. When I talk to you I should use tough row to hoe, to an urbanite I could use tough road to hoe. In your example you used words that were used with incorrect meanings (literally), in my example there are two correct meanings; I judge when people just use the word incorrectly. Eventually though, literally will have a new meaning in the dictionary. As the usage grows the new meaning will become the standard; that's the way English works or we would all still understand Shakespeare.
People who use ellipses between sentences instead of full stops...I worked for someone who did that once...In her professional emails...I see it sometimes on Facebook too...Drives me absolutely nuts...In my head I read it out with a comically significant pause between each sentence and a meaningful "You know what I'm saying??" tone......oops... Sorry.
People who use ellipses between sentences instead of full stops...I worked for someone who did that once...In her professional emails...I see it sometimes on Facebook too...Drives me absolutely nuts...In my head I read it out with a comically significant pause between each sentence and a meaningful "You know what I'm saying??" tone...
,,,oops,,, Sorry,People who use ellipses between sentences instead of full stops...I worked for someone who did that once...In her professional emails...I see it sometimes on Facebook too...Drives me absolutely nuts...In my head I read it out with a comically significant pause between each sentence and a meaningful "You know what I'm saying??" tone...
Even crazier, I regularly see people online who do this, but with commas.
So like this,,, I can't even figure out what they think this means,,, or how it ever occurred to them to start doing it,,,
People who use ellipses between sentences instead of full stops...I worked for someone who did that once...In her professional emails...I see it sometimes on Facebook too...Drives me absolutely nuts...In my head I read it out with a comically significant pause between each sentence and a meaningful "You know what I'm saying??" tone...
Even crazier, I regularly see people online who do this, but with commas.
So like this,,, I can't even figure out what they think this means,,, or how it ever occurred to them to start doing it,,,
Haha. Sorry prariestash, I am an "urbanite" and can safely say that I have never heard anyone use the slang word "ho" as a verb and certainly not to describe how difficult their job is! I am familiar with the slang use of the word, but that doesn't translate into another version of the saying. No, what you described really is a misuse of the phrase, coupled with an attempt to legitimize it. Really? Have you ever heard the phrase "I'm going to go ho this road"? Well, okay, but it's a tough one! Ha. That is ludicrous. I think this is an actual egg corn.:) You can put "ing" behind almost any noun to create a verb, that's commonly accepted. I fully believe that if someone said they "were going hoeing" while wearing a short skirt and knee high boots you wouldn't think they were gardening. Road hoe's have been hoeing their way across the USA for decades, "Road Ho's" are commonly found at truck stops. (spelling change is an indication of the spelling commonly used at American truck stops)
As for literally, the second definition (it's literal opposite) has already made it into the dictionary as an alternate definition! I'm not ready to accept it yet, but as you say, language evolves and so must we.
I'm sorry, I just really cannot accept this.Haha. Sorry prariestash, I am an "urbanite" and can safely say that I have never heard anyone use the slang word "ho" as a verb and certainly not to describe how difficult their job is! I am familiar with the slang use of the word, but that doesn't translate into another version of the saying. No, what you described really is a misuse of the phrase, coupled with an attempt to legitimize it. Really? Have you ever heard the phrase "I'm going to go ho this road"? Well, okay, but it's a tough one! Ha. That is ludicrous. I think this is an actual egg corn.:) You can put "ing" behind almost any noun to create a verb, that's commonly accepted. I fully believe that if someone said they "were going hoeing" while wearing a short skirt and knee high boots you wouldn't think they were gardening. Road hoe's have been hoeing their way across the USA for decades, "Road Ho's" are commonly found at truck stops. (spelling change is an indication of the spelling commonly used at American truck stops)
As for literally, the second definition (it's literal opposite) has already made it into the dictionary as an alternate definition! I'm not ready to accept it yet, but as you say, language evolves and so must we.
As for never hearing it before, that's the beautiful part of English. The next time you hear someone misuse it you can draw up the mental image of them dressed in a trashy manner going out to meet someone. Trust me, you'll thank me when you hear people say it poorly now. By infecting you with the alternate knowledge I've now contaminated your mind to understand the misuse and visualize horrible images of normal people going hoeing. You might find a few humorous situations now, you're welcome :)
As for legitimizing it, I think I just did. The threshold for making new terms in English is low, both parties need to understand the meaning. Although I still literally hate literally.
I had to look up eggcorn, apparently its a newer word from the 21st century, in 2015 it was inducted into the dictionary. The definition of an eggcorn is that its correctly understand even though its said in a misheard way. By claiming the phrase is an eggcorn, you understand the same meaning but it has an amusing phrasing. An eggcorn apparently is an apposite, which means "highly pertinent or appropriate - Merriam Webster."I'm sorry, I just really cannot accept this.Haha. Sorry prariestash, I am an "urbanite" and can safely say that I have never heard anyone use the slang word "ho" as a verb and certainly not to describe how difficult their job is! I am familiar with the slang use of the word, but that doesn't translate into another version of the saying. No, what you described really is a misuse of the phrase, coupled with an attempt to legitimize it. Really? Have you ever heard the phrase "I'm going to go ho this road"? Well, okay, but it's a tough one! Ha. That is ludicrous. I think this is an actual egg corn.:) You can put "ing" behind almost any noun to create a verb, that's commonly accepted. I fully believe that if someone said they "were going hoeing" while wearing a short skirt and knee high boots you wouldn't think they were gardening. Road hoe's have been hoeing their way across the USA for decades, "Road Ho's" are commonly found at truck stops. (spelling change is an indication of the spelling commonly used at American truck stops)
As for literally, the second definition (it's literal opposite) has already made it into the dictionary as an alternate definition! I'm not ready to accept it yet, but as you say, language evolves and so must we.
As for never hearing it before, that's the beautiful part of English. The next time you hear someone misuse it you can draw up the mental image of them dressed in a trashy manner going out to meet someone. Trust me, you'll thank me when you hear people say it poorly now. By infecting you with the alternate knowledge I've now contaminated your mind to understand the misuse and visualize horrible images of normal people going hoeing. You might find a few humorous situations now, you're welcome :)
As for legitimizing it, I think I just did. The threshold for making new terms in English is low, both parties need to understand the meaning. Although I still literally hate literally.
"Ho" started as an alternate pronunciation of whore. It was an insult not only to the prostitutes, but also to a specific segment of people who pronounced the word without fully enunciating it.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I won't bastardize a perfectly fine, time-tested, and honored English language idiom just because yet another uneducated person heard and uses the phrase incorrectly. Especially when the word that it is based on is cruel and culturally insensitive to begin with.
Don't mean to be a downer but I'm just not ready to jump in to that. Ordinarily, I would think this was an overreaction, but since we're in the Grammar nazi thread: nope...I'm standing my ground on this one.
Damn. I hate using the wrong word in the Grammar nazi thread! Thanks for calling me out on that, because now I've also learned something new and interesting! Huge Fail on my part.
I had to look up eggcorn, apparently its a newer word from the 21st century, in 2015 it was inducted into the dictionary. The definition of an eggcorn is that its correctly understand even though its said in a misheard way. By claiming the phrase is an eggcorn, you understand the same meaning but it has an amusing phrasing. An eggcorn apparently is an apposite, which means "highly pertinent or appropriate - Merriam Webster."
In calling "Road to Ho" an eggcorn, you're claiming that you understand and find it acceptable. I don't think you meant to use that term at all, quite the opposite. I had to look the word up and I make no apologies for looking it up for a grammar thread. It was fun to learn a new word, thank you for that.
I found an online link saying Road to Ho is an eggcorn too, I think eggcorns are meant to be taken in a positive manner. At least the way I read it; its saying something is understandable the way its pronounced and in itself pays homage to the mashing of words and phrases to create new words and phrases.
Oxford dictionary
a malapropism or misspelling arising from similarity between the sound of the misspelled or misused word and the correct one in the accent of the person making the mistake
[C21: based on the mishearing of acorn as eggcorn, which was considered to be apposite]
Further reading on eggcorn for those of us who enjoy learning a new word:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/05/30/410504851/eggcorns-the-gaffes-that-spread-like-wildflowers
I think I need to start a "Quote] Nazi" thread...
EDIT: Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police!No idea what you're talking about solon.
I think I need to start a "Quote] Nazi" thread...EDIT: Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police!No idea what you're talking about solon.
Damn. I hate using the wrong word in the Grammar nazi thread! Thanks for calling me out on that, because now I've also learned something new and interesting! Huge Fail on my part.Its a pretty fun word, I like it. I went on a huge tangent reading all sorts of eggcorns. "Spread like wildflowers" instead of "Spread like wild fire" seems much more calming. I need to find an appropriate place to use the term, something along the ideas of a beautiful idea spreading and bringing joy, instead of the violent wild fire image.
EDIT: Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police!
Guilty.
As.
Charged.
Guilty.
As.
Charged.
But...
Why?
But it's ROW not ROAD! And you hoe a row, then another... until finally the whole field is weed-free. A tough row has too many deep rooted weeds, and probably stones.
Exactly. A linguistics professor of mine wondered if the shift from the original "row" to "road" was because of our increasingly urban society. Perhaps most people have forgotten hoeing?
Guilty.
As.
Charged.
But...
Why?
For me, sometimes I use unorthodox punctuation and carriage returns when I think a pause deserves longer than a comma's amount of time. I'm pretty sure nothing I've said in the past 20 years is deserving of enough emphasis to justify newly-created punctuation, so I think I'll stop doing that.
Unless it's VERY. IMPORTANT.
wiz·enedThough I find the question posed interesting, I'm too put off by the insulting salutation to offer anything more than the definition of the hopefully mis-used word. No one else even seems to have noticed. Perhaps my only hope for a little righteous indignation is within the GN ranks.
ˈwizənd/adjective
Shriveled or wrinkled with age. "a wizened, weather-beaten old man"
synonyms: wrinkled, lined, creased, shriveled (up), withered, weather-beaten, shrunken, gnarled, aged
"their wizened faces said much about the hard lives they had endured"
What do they think they're saying?!
I thought it was weird that nobody else picked up on it. Not the OP or any subsequent posters. Perhaps they thought it was a synonym for "wise". Kind of insulting, IMO.What do they think they're saying?!
I just went and asked, it was odd.
I thought it was weird that nobody else picked up on it. Not the OP or any subsequent posters. Perhaps they thought it was a synonym for "wise". Kind of insulting, IMO.What do they think they're saying?!
I just went and asked, it was odd.
So I guess the question I have to ask myself now is, who am I to think that I'm the one who gets to decide what's "wrong" and what's just "new."
So I guess the question I have to ask myself now is, who am I to think that I'm the one who gets to decide what's "wrong" and what's just "new."
There are gray areas of course, but fortunately (unfortunately?) most of the time it's just people making mistakes. Like when I see "you're" misspelled as "your" (and this is so common it makes me lose faith in humanity) that's not a new usage, it's just someone who can't spell.
I've thought of another thing I find bizarre.
I've seen it several times on this forum.
It's when people type in single-sentence paragraphs.
I find it intensely jarring and will usually skip over their post and not read it.
I understand that online paragraphs are often very short - maybe even two or three sentences long.
Reading long walls of text onscreen can be tiring.
But surely this is taking it too far!
My real pet peeve these days is when people write "loose" instead of "lose".
My real pet peeve these days is when people write "loose" instead of "lose".
I see that one all the time. I also see slamming the "breaks" in your car. I know all the cool kids these days are language Descriptivists and not Prescriptivists; but it's much easier to accept linguistic changes in the ancient past than to see it real-time, in front of your eyes. The changes are driven by the idiots who can't grammar properly. Why should they "win"? It's galling. If we all sat down and decided to change the language, that's one thing. But dumbing it down for the lowest common denominator? Yuck.
Idiocracy. It's happening. (Terrible movie, but worth watching nonetheless, as the premise is interesting.) Soon we'll all just be grunting at each other.
So I guess the question I have to ask myself now is, who am I to think that I'm the one who gets to decide what's "wrong" and what's just "new."
On a different front, I'd like to anecdotally report a dramatic decrease in my pet-peeve sentence formula: "So, [...] right?" I think starting sentences with "so" and ending with "right?" just naturally played itself out and I don't hear it much anymore.
So I guess the question I have to ask myself now is, who am I to think that I'm the one who gets to decide what's "wrong" and what's just "new."
On a different front, I'd like to anecdotally report a dramatic decrease in my pet-peeve sentence formula: "So, [...] right?" I think starting sentences with "so" and ending with "right?" just naturally played itself out and I don't hear it much anymore.