The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Primm on October 29, 2014, 05:39:44 PM

Title: Grammar nazi
Post by: Primm on October 29, 2014, 05:39:44 PM
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.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Russ on October 29, 2014, 05:49:29 PM
I'd love to know what annoys others.

grammar nazis?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Primm on October 29, 2014, 06:00:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: fartface on October 29, 2014, 06:11:22 PM
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.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on October 29, 2014, 06:12:02 PM
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 had a Dutch roommate once who really had a hard time understanding the distinction, so maybe you could assume people aren't native english speakers to sooth yourself?
That's the sort of stuff that gets me too, because it's basic spoken english and easily corrected by just looking back over what you wrote. Why am I expected to spend time reading something that the author didn't even bother to read?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Andy_in_Aus on October 29, 2014, 06:21:14 PM


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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: surfhb on October 29, 2014, 07:10:33 PM


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  :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 29, 2014, 07:26:14 PM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: tracylayton on October 29, 2014, 08:02:57 PM
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,
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cheddar Stacker on October 29, 2014, 08:13:15 PM
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)

+100

I have bad hearing. Background noise is amplified 5x more than conversation right in front of me. I hear chewing louder than anything.

As to the topic, I've loosened up. It doesn't matter unless someone is judging your writing ability. I'm not here to judge that. I notice it, but I try to let it slide since its irrelevant to the discussion. It is distracting and messes with my "flow" when reading, but not worth losing sleep.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 29, 2014, 08:30:17 PM
backwards formation of verbs:  incentivize; conversate (yeah, really);
imply/infer
principle/principal (especially on this site, when people are being sooooo judgemental and then make this error)
antidotal/anecdotal
since/because

Actually as I age I'm getting more relaxed and they don't bother me as much. 

I work with a guy who is Asian and doesn't speak English at home.  He's been here since he was two, so I used to feel he had no excuse for not speaking proper English, but he just doesn't practice it that much.  In any case, he will never advance at work because he cannot communicate well enough.  People just don't want to be bothered trying to figure out what he means when he says something that doesn't make sense.  It's a shame because he's smart, just lazy when it comes to language and words.   
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Charm14 on October 29, 2014, 09:43:44 PM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: vern on October 30, 2014, 12:22:08 AM
When people say, "I could care less."

When they mean, "I couldn't care less."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on October 30, 2014, 12:30:34 AM
affect vs. effect, although that one is sort of understandable since the verbs have somewhat similar meanings.

it's vs. its, theirs vs. there's also.

Apple's "Think different" slogan will probably irritate me until the day I die.  I try not to think about it at all.

For me all of these sorts of things jump out of the page at me and I can't help noticing them.  I've taken to providing two lists whenever someone asks:  a list of substantive comments and a list of nitpicks.  That way people who care can fix both lists, and those folks of the more relaxed persuasion can just focus on the first one.

Also, I vacillate between being a grammar Nazi and appreciating the creative way people use and evolve the language.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: 1967mama on October 30, 2014, 01:02:56 AM
I once had a teacher tell me she would make antidotal comments on a child's report card.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: marty998 on October 30, 2014, 01:50:00 AM
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,

Well, who'd have thunk it!

I don't like it when people say "I didn't do nothing" and variations.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cheddar Stacker on October 30, 2014, 06:40:36 AM
I'd love to know what annoys others.

grammar nazis?
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.

Well played spartana.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Milizard on October 30, 2014, 07:06:17 AM
This isn't grammar so much as spelling, but seeing "rediculous" and "boarders" is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on October 30, 2014, 07:55:14 AM
Where to begin ...

"Alright" is ALL WRONG.  It's "all right."

The "there/they're/their" and "your/you're" confusion.  Oops, forgot "to/too/two."

You want to "lose" weight, not "loose" weight (this one really drives me up the wall).

Shortening words--"totes" instead of "totally," "deets" instead of "details," "redic" instead of "ridiculous," etc.

People who actually say "Oh em gee" instead of "oh, my God."  This is common in my workplace.

And don't even get me started on textspeak.  My oldest niece (25) sends me an e-mail or IMs me and it takes me half an hour to decipher it.  It's like reading illiterate hieroglyphics.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on October 30, 2014, 08:00:01 AM
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)

I don't remember where, but I saw a comic that basically said "alot" is not a word, just like "abunch", "afew", etc are not words.  That has always stuck with me and I think about it every time I see "alot" or "a lot". 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NumberCruncher on October 30, 2014, 08:37:11 AM


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 know what you mean!!! Ignorant people - their always messing that up. ;)  Couldn't resist...


I mostly hate it when grammar gets ambiguous. Language is meant to communicate, not confuse.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on October 30, 2014, 08:47:27 AM
"I went to the store Monday" vs "I went to the store on Monday".

"Won't be beat!" is the strapline of a supermarket here.

Incorrect use of take and bring.

It's and its. Your and you're.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
I've noticed a disturbing trend of people dropping 'to be' in typing . . . writing that something 'needs done' makes me wince.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on October 30, 2014, 02:51:05 PM
I remembered another one, but it's pronunciation, not grammar.  Whatev's. (<- ;-P )

Pronouncing "et cetera" as either "ek-SET-ruh" or "et-SET-ruh".  I believe it is pronounced as it is spelled -- at least that is how my Latin teacher taught me:  "Et SET-er-uh".  Although the "et-SET-ruh" might just be sloppy, not wrong.

Things I like in terms of creative language are things like "google" becoming a verb, and the way Mark Twain wrote the accents of his characters in Huck Finn.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on October 30, 2014, 02:52:49 PM
Oh, and another one is people misusing Latin abbreviations.  i.e. and e.g. mean two different things.  And it is not "ie." and "eg."  But now I'm getting really picky.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bob W on October 30, 2014, 03:06:39 PM
ppl wh thnk tht lngg is st n stn, nd cnt adpt
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 30, 2014, 06:31:04 PM
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!

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: bonjourliz on October 30, 2014, 07:49:47 PM
Craigslist has some terrible English.  I have seen chester drawers and rod iron for sale. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on October 30, 2014, 08:00:56 PM
The Oatmeal shares your pain:  http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on October 30, 2014, 08:17:32 PM
...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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on October 30, 2014, 09:27:59 PM
...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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 31, 2014, 05:07:19 AM
Did I miss it or did we completely overlook irregardless? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MayDay on October 31, 2014, 06:29:01 AM
Like the pp with the Asian coworker not getting ahead, I don't care how you talk/type, but my brain will get confused trying to decipher your incorrect word choices, and then there is a higher chance I won't try to interact with you in the future.

And also you will appear uneducated which will subconsciously and/or consciously make me think you aren't very smart.

 It's pretty easy to tell when someone isn't a native English speaker (accent and general sentence structure and word choice) and they get a free pass.  Grammar doesn't bother me much within reason but using the wrong word just hurts my brain. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: stripey on October 31, 2014, 06:33:50 AM
Did I miss it or did we completely overlook irregardless?

^ Bingo. One of the most annoying incorrect words ever.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 31, 2014, 06:43:23 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: LibrarIan on October 31, 2014, 07:08:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2014, 07:17:56 AM
A travesty can often be a tragedy, and a many tragedies are caused by travesties.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NumberCruncher on October 31, 2014, 07:22:38 AM
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'm in my 20s and was taught the distinction by my grammar nazi mom (but don't remember it being taught in school).

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 31, 2014, 07:31:08 AM
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)

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. 

Full disclosure: I have allergies and sometimes, just sometimes, I open-mouth breathe and wheeze.  Yet, I loathe open-mouth breathers!  Oh the journey of self-discovery sure does soften our mighty judgements.  Does it not?

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.
 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 31, 2014, 07:38:52 AM
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 was taught this.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on October 31, 2014, 07:57:23 AM
Two more, sadly seen on this very board:

It's "I was not fazed," not "phased."  I've also seen "fazed" used when "phased" was meant, e.g. "fazed out of this project."

It's "rein in," not "reign in."



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on October 31, 2014, 07:57:51 AM
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!

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 am also confused by the italicized part.   What do you mean the new standard? It's always been judgmental as far as I know.

A good way to remember desert/dessert is that dessert spelled backwards is stressed.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on October 31, 2014, 08:17:46 AM
...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!
Don't you mean somebody's won? or maybe somebodies won? Or maybe some buddy won? :-)

Oh good! I was going to announce that first prize was a pun joke, second prize was two pun jokes, but I didn't see how anyone could get second prize but now you have.</run-on sentence>

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.
 

Yes! And people who indiscriminately use 'whom' because they're trying to sound formal.

Or pronouncing the plural of "premise" as "premiseez." It's not a greek ending. Don't say it like a greek ending.

Not a grammar thing, but using more formal language than you need to in a way that doesn't make sense.
Couple businesses I work with have started beginning all their emails with, "Please be advised." Like, even when I asked a simple question and they're answering it. "Hey, could you please let me know when the fire drill is?" "Please be advised the fire drill is at 10am." Well shit, hoss, thanks, consider me advised.
A piece of equipment goes missing. "Can someone please confirm what happened to [equipment]?" No, because nobody else has proposed an idea that could be confirmed. You can just say, "Does anyone know what happened to to [equipment]?" Professional does not equal stilted.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on October 31, 2014, 09:12:07 AM
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). 

Quote
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. 
[/quote]
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Better Change on October 31, 2014, 09:52:11 AM
Ugh, the confusion of plural versus possessive.  Analysis of my work e-mails indicates that 80% of Michiganders don't know the difference.

"Employee's should report to this building...." 

Every damn day.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cheddar Stacker on October 31, 2014, 11:46:15 AM
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. 

+1 to this whole thing, no bullshit, and we're still cool.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2014, 11:56:12 AM
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. 

Most foods don't need to be chewed at all.  Pretty much any cooked vegetable can be eaten without chewing, pasta of most varieties doesn't need chewing, slow cooked meats, tons of variety of bread (lubricate with butter), rice, etc.  The key is to keep a large glass of water nearby at all times.  It should be possible to eat most meals without chewing more than 20 - 30 times.  :P
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: domustachesgrowinhouston on October 31, 2014, 12:06:02 PM
I find it mildly annoying that all cars run good.  Also languages that have words like farther/further that make me have to think too hard about which one I need to use.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gone Fishing on October 31, 2014, 12:48:20 PM
A few local favorites:

Pacific instead of Specific
Partial instead of Parcel
Flustrated instead of Frustrated or Flustered
Laxidaisical instead of Lackadaisical
Srimp instead of Shrimp
Sale instead of sell

There are a few more but I can't think of them at the moment.  I will amend as needed...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kaspian on October 31, 2014, 01:43:19 PM
"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".)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: tmac on October 31, 2014, 02:07:17 PM
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..."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: CabinetGuy on October 31, 2014, 02:07:54 PM
"Definately". I hate this one, and I hate it even more because I see a college grad doing it all the time. 

Sangwich instead of sandwich.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: 1967mama on October 31, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
Walla instead of viola!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: hdatontodo on October 31, 2014, 04:01:19 PM
Walla instead of viola!
Uh it is voila
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on October 31, 2014, 04:20:52 PM
Payed vs. Paid.

As in "I just payed off my credit card." [Insert sound of screaming here.]

Also another memo favorite from the old boss archives:

"Thank you for your patients." No, the sender was not a medical professional.

I have no patience with that shit. I asked him what time my appointment was, but he didn't get it.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Primm on October 31, 2014, 05:42:17 PM
Walla instead of viola!
Uh it is voila

I think that's 1967mama's point, people who use walla instead of voila annoy her.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: 1967mama on October 31, 2014, 06:24:40 PM
haha! typo! on voila! I've done that before on the forum, and somebody nailed me for it!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on October 31, 2014, 06:28:03 PM

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kriegsspiel on October 31, 2014, 06:35:19 PM
I wouldn't've thought there were so many pet peeves to be had.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on November 01, 2014, 06:42:25 AM
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.

Like, things aren't "different than" because there's no quality that's greater or lesser being discussed, it's just different. So you say "different from."

Or, separately is with an "ar" while desperately is with an "er" but in american english we swallow both those syllables so I'm fine with people misspelling them in informal usage.


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.
Wait, where I come from it's jool-ry. Two syllables. Dialect thing? I'm also driven nuts by family pronounced with three syllables.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: KMMK on November 01, 2014, 07:30:02 AM
Hampster.  Ugh - online ads are the best/worst.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on November 01, 2014, 07:40:18 AM
Congradulations.

(http://media.giphy.com/media/FEikw3bXVHdMk/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: tmac on November 01, 2014, 07:47:15 AM
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.

I restrain myself when I'm out and about, but I insist that my children say it properly. We're almost there. They say, "The reason is because-I-mean-is-that...."

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on November 01, 2014, 10:57:45 AM

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. 



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.
Wait, where I come from it's jool-ry. Two syllables. Dialect thing? I'm also driven nuts by family pronounced with three syllables.
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: smilla on November 01, 2014, 12:31:06 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on November 01, 2014, 03:40:08 PM

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. 

Ah, sorry, I meant "bad old" not "bad, old". I know "jewelry" is current in American English. I just think American English is bad. In the English they speak in England, it is jewellery.

I am, of course, English.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on November 01, 2014, 04:14:05 PM
to represent tits actual spelling.

I wouldn't normally snicker at typos on a forum, but in this thread they seem particularly funny.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kriegsspiel on November 01, 2014, 06:21:46 PM
I thought it breast not to mention it, since they're obviously trying so hard.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on November 01, 2014, 10:27:28 PM
to represent tits actual spelling.

I wouldn't normally snicker at typos on a forum, but in this thread they seem particularly funny.

I think that's a sign it's time for me to quit this post!  :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Andy_in_Aus on November 02, 2014, 12:09:30 AM
It's been said that Shakespeare would be furious at what we have done to the English language since his time.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: hdatontodo on November 02, 2014, 06:00:22 AM
It's been said that Shakespeare would be furious at what we have done to the English language since his time.

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.
And some people say that Shakespeare was just a pen name
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GuitarStv on November 03, 2014, 06:33:49 AM
I thought it breast not to mention it, since they're obviously trying so hard.

It's always one thing or amother with you people . . .
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: rocksinmyhead on November 03, 2014, 07:18:48 AM
"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".)

Haha, I never knew it was called a greengrocers' apostrophe. Love it (the nickname... hate the error!)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 03, 2014, 08:15:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: rocksinmyhead on November 03, 2014, 08:43:52 AM
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?

It's definitely a thing in parts of Pennsylvania too. I started saying it as a joke to make fun of my friends and boyfriend, and now sometimes I accidentally say it for real! Ahhh!!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: hybrid on November 03, 2014, 01:58:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on November 03, 2014, 02:41:09 PM
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.

Oh I always think it's interesting that the term has evolved this way though. Even though Nazis are unquestionably the bad guys, as a suffix it conveys a measure of respect. Grammar nazis are vicious, intolerant and inhuman, sure, but they're also good at grammar, damned good, better than everyone else. I think it says really interesting things about our attitudes towards competency and morality.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on November 03, 2014, 02:44:18 PM
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.

Grammar Khmer Rouge somehow just doesn't have the same ring.  :D

I understand what you're saying, though.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on November 03, 2014, 02:54:23 PM
OK, someone's had at the "nazi" part, so I'll have a go at the "grammar". Almost none of the things on here are grammar. Some are pronunciation, some are punctuation, but most are spelling, which is at the same time so trivial that it shouldn't annoy me ('cause it's so unrelated to intelligence, and for most of the history of English wasn't standardized), but so fix-able that it does.

I will point out that many of the actual grammar and pronunciation things on here -- seen, needs done, srimp, sangwich, different than/from, won't be beat, I went to the store Monday, jewel-uh-ry, since/because -- are actually okay in some or even most varieties of English, and most of them used to be more widespread. "Seen" is even part of a list of features the linguist Jack Chambers calls "angloversals", because they're so widespread. "Different from/than/to" varies even in highly formal writing and speech, depending on which (English-speaking) country you're in.

So <edit:for these features, it's> definitely not a matter of individual speakers "who should know better" screwing up through laziness or defiance. It's people speaking a variety of English that's different from (than?) yours. If someone from the eastern US got pissed off at me because I pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same, I'd be pissed off right back.

Sorry if I'm harrumphy about this, but at work I sometimes have to deal with idiot colleagues who give bad marks to papers written by students with different (usually regional) grammars. As a result, local dialect-speaking students get worse marks than people who sound like the prof, even if they know more about the actual subject.

That said, anyone over 12 who spells "lose" as "loose" should be struck about the head and neck with a ball peen hammer.

<edited for clarity of anaphor.>
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on November 03, 2014, 02:56:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: DoubleDown on November 03, 2014, 04:17:48 PM
"Couple" instead of "couple of."

Wrong: "I need to pick up a couple things."

Right: "I need to pick up a couple of things."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Hadilly on November 03, 2014, 05:48:14 PM
I hate it when people use "well" and "good" interchangeably. Also, "reign" and "rein" are very different, yet the former is frequently misused (on this forum no less). While I'm at it, "hesitant" does not mean "reticent" ever!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on November 03, 2014, 07:06:33 PM


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  :)

subwoofer*, unless you're talking about your neighbor that really likes Penn Station. 

I am surprised I have something to contribute.  I admittedly have to watch myself with homophones (their/they're/there), though others' simple mistakes with grammar and spelling still bother me.  I come fresh from the realm of online dating, and if I had a nickel for every time I read part of an "easy going" woman's profile, I'd have about $5. 

Similar to the issue with "easygoing", a misuse of dashes bothers me.  It's a half-baked attempt at grammar, not a "half baked" attempt.  It's a poverty-stricken family, not one that's "poverty stricken". 

Lastly, I abhor American English's current grammar conventions regarding the use of quotes.  I won't go into detail, but I totally ranted about it in the Off-Topic section of this forum a few months back.  Before I posted, I didn't know that the conventions I was using were the same conventions already in place for the Australians and the British, which is awesome.  One of those conventions is to only place those things inside the quotes that are truly being quoted, including punctuation.  Perhaps some of you were bothered by my use of ""easygoing"," earlier.  No apologies there!

Edit:  please don't take offense surfhb, I only comment in the spirit of the thread!  Plus the visual of a sucky neighbor that likes foot-long sandwiches is entertaining.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on November 03, 2014, 07:36:36 PM
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!) :-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on November 04, 2014, 07:04:02 AM
Wow and I thought my knickers were in a knot over poor grammar, misspellings and improper punctuation.

I've nothing on some of you!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Lizzy B. on November 04, 2014, 07:39:52 AM
Gerard, I like the distinction you draw between regional usage and true grammar or spelling issues.  I’ve lived throughout the US and the UK, and have enjoyed picking up useful or entertaining figures of speech.  Apparently US speakers use the term “perSnickety”, while the Scots prefer “pernickety”.  As you can imagine, they’re a bit… (wait for it…) persnickety about the whole debate.  Now that I’m in Texas, I heartily embrace “ya’ll” as a wonderfully useful word that helps avoid the ambiguity of “you”.  I’m sure things like that, combined with the true mistakes we all make while speaking, makes me seem less verbally competent to some listeners.  Oh well: you can’t please them all!

One issue that still bothers me is fewer/less.  It was a sad day when Target changed the signs above their express checkouts to read “10 items or less”.  I understand slipping up while speaking, but using the wrong term on signage in a major store is less forgivable.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on November 04, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
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!) :-)

You have points there!  I've never thought about either of them.  :)  Haha.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: DollarBill on November 04, 2014, 08:16:33 AM
Word Crimes...lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: usmarine1975 on November 04, 2014, 08:30:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on November 05, 2014, 10:36:44 AM
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.

Anyway, this is a Grammar Nazi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on November 05, 2014, 05:35:03 PM
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.

Intended with hugs and smiles, not finger waving:

Granted I should have *gone* to my parents. I went. English certainly is an odd language.

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.

(My FIL has a saying, un-asked for advice is criticism. I like the saying. I am working on it...)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: justajane on November 05, 2014, 06:11:08 PM
This is a regional faux pas, but I can't stand it when people around the Midwest say "had went" instead of "had gone." This is especially unfortunate, because my husband does it.

The other day I heard my six year old say it. I informed him that even though his father says this and I love him despite this tendency, I will continue to correct him until he excises that from his speech.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on November 05, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
It's "rein in," not "reign in."

After all the good ones that were posted, this one actually had me laughing out loud (LOL).


Boy, that is some mental image.   I think my "drama queen" daughter could demonstrate "reign in" quite nicely.

Two of mine: 

As someone noted, the loss of "ly" on the end of adverbs.   e.g., When I say, "He completed that task quickly", I cringe when the "ly" is left off by others.

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.
----------------------------------------

My largest peeve, is the use of tablets that auto correct, or make it difficult to write / type using the on-screen keyboard.  This is the source of far too many of my own horrible errors in this forum.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: DollarBill on November 05, 2014, 07:46:56 PM
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.

Anyway, this is a Grammar Nazi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Nice one!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: domustachesgrowinhouston on November 05, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
Word Crimes...lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc)

Funny video.  Seems we have a number of cunning linguists here as well.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on November 05, 2014, 09:02:01 PM
Let's not forget people whose curiosity is peaked.

But, yeah, I definitely appreciate that language is a living thing and there are a lot of things native speakers say that are legitimately part of the language even if they don't belong in a formal setting. Which is sort of why several of my pet peeves had to do with writing in a stilted, unnatural style. (The famous "misunderestimated me" is another one. Not sure why 'he's just a plain-spoken guy' was the common excuse for stuff like that. That's sort of the opposite way plain-spoken people talk.)

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.

I think he was having a go at us.

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.

Anyway, this is a Grammar Nazi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM
Nice one!
Ah, I thought it might be this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on November 06, 2014, 04:44:17 AM
Not to go all sentence fragment on you.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/language_nerd.png)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: usmarine1975 on November 06, 2014, 06:56:39 AM

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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on November 06, 2014, 07:14:51 AM

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 know people that have been living and speaking the language for their entire lives and still make mistakes.  If a couple weekends was enough for you to learn and correct all your mistakes you would already be an english genius.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on November 06, 2014, 07:43:35 AM


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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: usmarine1975 on November 06, 2014, 08:02:35 AM
At least I am willing to try.  Any improvement is still improvement.  I am not looking to teach English or master it.  But improving on what I know now is not a bad thing. 

[/quote]

I know people that have been living and speaking the language for their entire lives and still make mistakes.  If a couple weekends was enough for you to learn and correct all your mistakes you would already be an english genius.
[/quote]

Thank you for the Link I will check it out.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: rocksinmyhead on November 06, 2014, 08:18:41 AM


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.

This site is AWESOME. I worked in my university's writing center and always directed people to it. Plus it was a great resource for me personally, especially for citation styles and crap like that you can never remember all the details of.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on November 06, 2014, 04:24:02 PM
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.
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!  ;)
Actually, what I'm realizing is that too much crap "makes me crazy". Really, i make me crazy. Here's to not sweating the small stuff. (And it's all small stuff)
On a funny note, after years of correcting me when I said "Jim and me did such and such", I once had the opportunity to correct her for the same thing. I smugly corrected "Jim and I". Without missing a beat, she said "oh, you were there too?"   Never try to correct an English teacher, even when you're right.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: hybrid on November 10, 2014, 01:38:04 PM
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.  ;-)
 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on November 10, 2014, 02:30:46 PM
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.  ;-)
 
+1. Except the sanctimonious part. IMHO, you're 100% wrong there. ;-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MrsK on November 10, 2014, 03:37:30 PM
...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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Milizard on November 10, 2014, 05:36:23 PM
I am far from perfect at spelling and grammar.  I think that it's important to try to be correct when writing, however.  (The same could be said for speaking, but there are more regional idiosyncrasies that are in play there.)  When I was growing up, I read a lot.  That is where I learned the vast majority of my spelling and grammar rules.  The problem is, with the sloppiness and shear ignorance displayed by people who write on the internet, I'm slowly losing the knowledge that I had attained. The crappy spelling is like a virus, in that when a reader sees something written incorrectly, they are more likely to use the error in their own writing.  ...and then there is autocorrect. We're all doomed.  ;-)  Grammatical anarchy here we come!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on November 10, 2014, 11:02:16 PM
...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.
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.

The reason for using the correct word is exactly so that the reader can understand the writer's point. In the case you cited above, there is a little bit more going on than meets the eye. Sheepstache is a very good writer and frequent contributor. I was fairly certain that the use of "sooth" vs. "soothe" was merely a typo, but it did cleverly underscore the thread's main point. Sheepstache is both smart and funny, so I would have completely believed that the typo was deliberate.

The fact that people care enough to organize their thoughts, and take the time to share them using proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation is apparent throughout this site. I believe this shows a level of respect for fellow forum participants. It is a far cry from the garbage comments one sees on Yahoo, for example. One sees so many egregious errors out in the world; it's nice to have a sheltered place to air one's pet peeves. I enjoy reading about what drives others nuts, primarily so I can hold a mirror up and check that I'm not making the same mistakes.

I believe there was a comment upstream giving all non-native speakers a pass.  I second that. I truly hope it's clear that these "peeves" are directed at people who should know better, myself included.

I think the whole "Grammar Nazi" thing came into widespread usage when the (then) very popular Seinfeld Show featured a character called the Soup Nazi. The term took hold and is apparently here to stay. Grammar Zealot might be a more accurate term, but sadly, it doesn't have the same ring to it.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on November 13, 2014, 05:47:16 PM
Maybe Grammar Police would be better than Grammar Nazis?  But then we might get lumped in with the Retirement Police.  We could be PDCBBE - "people driven crazy by bad english".  Not a catchy acronym, though.

It is not just us. When my DD was in French High School, the teachers had even more difficulty with the bad French of their students than her English teachers in Elementary school had with the bad English of their students.  It is universal!

Et ici on parle Franglais.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Elle 8 on November 22, 2014, 06:52:42 PM
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".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on November 22, 2014, 06:57:29 PM
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".

"Grosheries" I believe is standard pronunciation in much of the U.S., but I would prefer the more phonetic pronunciation.  There are a couple of other American bastardizations that the British (at least, maybe Australians too?) have kept clean, but I'm blanking on them at the moment...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on November 22, 2014, 07:04:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: domustachesgrowinhouston on November 22, 2014, 07:32:39 PM
...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.
Probably because it is easier and more fun to point out to other people how they can improve than it is to improve oneself.

Best of luck with the American slang.  I was once told a joke by a Brazilian student you may appreciate:  A person that can speak three languages is called trilingual.  A person that can speak two languages is called bilingual.  A person that speaks one language is called American.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on November 23, 2014, 02:07:20 AM
In school I was taught to never begin a sentence with 'but'.  At some point I discovered this to be yet another Victorian construct, and in fact, beginning a sentence with 'but' is perfectly okay. 

Now, I'm reaping an unexpected reward; every time I begin a sentence with 'but' I revel in an act that feels very very naughty.  But I know it's actually okay. 

Let's just say it's a gratifying indulgence. 

But that's stupid right?  IDC - it is what it is.  I just have to be careful.  Sometimes I go overboard, starting with the 'but'.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on November 23, 2014, 03:48:04 PM
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.

An entertaining counterpoint by Geoff Pullum, a very readable linguist:

http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on November 23, 2014, 04:38:02 PM
 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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on November 24, 2014, 11:33:58 AM
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.

I thought that was Einstein?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on November 25, 2014, 08:59:32 AM
Hmm. I misquoted, sorry. It's widely attributed to Einstein, but some say it comes from Richard Feynman. It sounds like Feynman. The White quote is: "Use the smallest word that does the job."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gone Fishing on November 25, 2014, 09:22:02 AM
Twice pronounced twist with a long i.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on November 25, 2014, 10:15:51 AM
As in twice-t?  Never heard that
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gone Fishing on November 25, 2014, 01:31:44 PM
As in twice-t?  Never heard that

You don't want to...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: deborah on November 26, 2014, 02:21:59 AM
I get really annoyed by people who imply that the plural of you is yous.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Beric01 on November 26, 2014, 02:28:14 AM
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. Latin and Spanish (the languages I've studied so far, though lost most of them) both had no issues with this.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: deborah on November 26, 2014, 02:46:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverwood on November 28, 2014, 04:56:10 PM
By reading this I realized I use alright all the time, oops

I watched this on YouTube and thought it was interesting. I was mostly interested because my boss ignores me. Maybe if I put more effort into how I speak that will help with my writing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIho2S0ZahI&list=UUAuUUnT6oDeKwE6v1NGQxug
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MarciaB on December 02, 2014, 04:41:03 PM
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.")



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 02, 2014, 04:56:48 PM
It's Tom and I's birthday today

What's the correct way to say this? I've always had trouble with constructions like this.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MarciaB on December 02, 2014, 05:00:12 PM
You say it the way you would if you used only one person at a time:

It's Tom's birthday today.

It's my birthday today.

It's Tom's and my birthday today.


Makes sense when you think about it. Sounds a little stilted, but you get used to it, and then it comes naturally.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on December 02, 2014, 06:51:31 PM
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.")

I love my in-laws.  They're kind, loving, funny, generous.  But, the entire family suffers from some malady that causes them to use object pronouns when they should be using subject pronouns. 

For me, visits are opportunities to practice letting go of irritation.  Visits are opportunities to practice keeping my mouth shut even as I want to scream, "She! She and I went to the store! It's not HER AND I!  GAAAAAAHH!" 

I just smile.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on December 02, 2014, 07:43:59 PM
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.
"Y'all" is the singular.  "All y'all" is the plural. :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on December 06, 2014, 01:08:19 PM
"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!)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: OutBy40 on December 06, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
For whatever reason, I am seeing more and more loose vs. lose mistakes.  People almost always add the extra o.  Not sure why or how that habit materialized.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on December 08, 2014, 12:03:25 PM
"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!)

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on December 08, 2014, 12:42:28 PM
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.
"Y'all" is the singular.  "All y'all" is the plural. :)
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit.

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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on December 08, 2014, 01:06:55 PM
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.

No, that's how you do it in Standard English. In dialects where object forms are permitted, they both have to be object forms (her, me) even though with a single person you'd use subject forms (she, I).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: iris lily on December 08, 2014, 01:14:04 PM
I make myself crazy with mis-using "it's." God, I know better, but nearly every day I put in that stupid apostrophe when it should not be there.

I use "If I were rich" but I suppose that's because I read every English novel I could get my hands on in my youth, and if that originated in England, I'd have  heard of it.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on December 08, 2014, 01:39:25 PM
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.
"Y'all" is the singular.  "All y'all" is the plural. :)
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: iris lily on December 08, 2014, 11:48:56 PM
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.
"Y'all" is the singular.  "All y'all" is the plural. :)
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit.

"Y'all" is perfectly fine in casual conversation. Being from the Midwest we say "you guys" but I like "y'all" better, it is softer and more pleasant on the ears. I picked that up when I lived in New Mexico.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on December 09, 2014, 10:08:14 AM
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.
"Y'all" is the singular.  "All y'all" is the plural. :)
and "youse" is Jersey :-)!Yo! Youse guys. Howzabout youse just fuggitaboutit.

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.

I was very proud of myself.  I still say "you guys" way more than "y'all," though.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverwood on December 14, 2014, 07:39:40 PM
What do you say when you're comforting a Grammar Nazi?

There, Their, They're

;P
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on December 14, 2014, 08:20:36 PM
This isn't really grammar (or is it?)--

Using the word "so" to begin a conversation/topic/answer to a question.  Harry Shearer* calls it the use of the "initial 'so'".  I have seen many threads here originating with a post that begins with the word "so".

I think this is a fairly new phenomenon, and it perplexes me.  It used to be that one only used so to mean "as a result" or "in conclusion".


* http://harryshearer.com/le-show/
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on December 14, 2014, 08:44:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on December 15, 2014, 01:03:32 PM
What do you say when you're comforting a Grammar Nazi?

There, Their, They're

;P
Har dee har har har! Love this.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: CowboyAndIndian on December 15, 2014, 01:11:38 PM
The oatmeal is really funny. His take on common mis-spellings/Grammar.

http://theoatmeal.com/tag/grammar

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pzxc on December 15, 2014, 01:21:38 PM
The lose/loose thing drives me nuts.  Wary/weary is another one that happens ALL THE TIME and bugs me.

The worst though, are the phrases that get bungled instead of words.  The other day, someone wrote me an email that begin with, "For all intensive purposes..."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 15, 2014, 01:31:15 PM
I once got a Christmas letter from an old friend who said, "...Ray is now 35 lbs soak and wet."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on December 15, 2014, 02:05:40 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on December 15, 2014, 03:12:07 PM
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.

Oh, that must be annoying.  Fortunately, it hasn't caught on in my neck of the woods.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on December 15, 2014, 03:19:07 PM

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

What about Prius?  That's Latin, isn't it?  ;-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on December 15, 2014, 03:48:43 PM
Just read that Toyota decided that the plural of Prius is Prii...

*le sigh*
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on December 15, 2014, 04:39:04 PM
Just read that Toyota decided that the plural of Prius is Prii...

*le sigh*

Ha!! That one got me in another thread:

Also, don't the newer Priuses (Prius', Pri-i, Priusi?) or some other hybrid have that 'feature' where they turn off at stoplights?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on December 15, 2014, 06:19:48 PM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on December 15, 2014, 07:35:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 15, 2014, 08:10:38 PM
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.

It's the dot after et, I believe.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on December 15, 2014, 08:11:24 PM
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.

"Et" (or "et" if it isn't capitalized to start a sentence) doesn't need a period because it is a whole word (meaning "and"), not an abbreviation. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on December 16, 2014, 11:33:29 AM
God, I love this thread!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RapmasterD on December 19, 2014, 06:48:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on December 21, 2014, 07:25:57 PM
Just read that Toyota decided that the plural of Prius is Prii...

*le sigh*

No!

Does that mean that the singular of Wii is....   Wius?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jopiquant on December 23, 2014, 05:13:04 PM
Didn't see this one. Everyday ("Non-profits ask for everyday needs this holiday season") versus every day ("I get up at seven a.m. every day"). I only ever see it in print, obviously.

Here's a quick Google example:

http://www.burlesonstar.net/localnews/ci_27188526

Headline reads:

"Police: 'We put our lives on the line everyday'"

Not correct. Most of the time news sources get this right and it's quotes that get it wrong, but not always.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on December 23, 2014, 06:25:09 PM
I'm a grammar libertarian.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 23, 2014, 09:06:24 PM
I'm a grammar libertarian.

Your comment is offensive to libertarians.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pzxc on December 24, 2014, 11:54:26 AM
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 can certainly understand how the Holocaust is a sensitive issue for a ton of people. I sympathize.

However, blame Seinfeld.  Ever since the "soup nazi" episode, the term Nazi has entered the English vernacular as a general epithet referring to anyone who is stingy, perfectionist, or a self-proclaimed authority on a specific topic.

I don't like that "gay" is used by kids these days as a denegration, as in, "That's gay" whereas a slightly older group is more likely to say "That sucks" or "That's lame".  There's even a south park episode devoted to the slang use of "fag" referring to so-called "douchebags" or annoying, inconsiderate people rather than actual homosexuals.

I hate it. But English, like all language, evolves -- it's a force of nature and there's not much you can do about it except wait and hope it eventually is no longer trendy.

(And cognitive biases come into play that make us totally miss that someone might be offended by a slang term we use. For example, how many of you, reading the above paragraphs, noticed that "lame" might actually be offensive to disabled people just like "cripple" or "gimp" is?  I bet it's less than 10%)
(Is disabled the preferred term now? I know handicapped is no longer in vogue)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on December 24, 2014, 02:05:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 24, 2014, 11:27:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: LokiMom on December 29, 2014, 07:35:02 PM
1.)  People who use "that" instead of "who" when referring to other humans.
For example: "The man, that drove me insane with his horrible misuse of grammar, was simply ignorant." It should be: "The man, who drove me insane with his horrible misuse of grammar, was simply ignorant."
Unfortunately this is a common error that even professional writers make.
2.) Apostrophe abuse.
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. 

 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on December 30, 2014, 08:56:24 AM
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.

Yeah, I'm dumb. Totally missed that.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on December 30, 2014, 09:23:36 AM
I just picked up a copy of "Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words". It's an updated edition, and surprisingly entertaining reading.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: CheapskateWife on December 30, 2014, 11:55:51 AM
Use of the "n" word aside, this might just be my favorite thread of all time.  Thank you all for brightening what was an otherwise dreary day.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NoraLenderbee on December 30, 2014, 12:03:01 PM

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 shined my shoes until they shone.

ETA: That isn't an example of the usage you mentioned. I just felt like saying it.

My current peeve is the addition of unnecessary prepositions (or postpositives). We serve up burgers. He heads up the group. They swapped out the disk drives. What happened to serving burgers, heading the group, and swapping disk drives?

And "out of" instead of "from"--a particular favorite of sports commentators. Jones is a first-year halfback out of Arkansas.
Sports "journalism" in general is chock-full of irritating misusage.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on December 30, 2014, 01:47:06 PM
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).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on December 30, 2014, 04:59:19 PM
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).
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". 

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on December 30, 2014, 05:26:57 PM
Don't be a jugmental person.  Bad things can happen.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on December 30, 2014, 05:34:34 PM
Don't be a jugmental person.  Bad things can happen.
That is me!  Thank you -- made me laugh!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on December 30, 2014, 05:46:42 PM
Don't be a jugmental person.  Bad things can happen.
That is me!  Thank you -- made me laugh!

Haha.  You're welcome.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Chaplin on December 31, 2014, 12:01:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: marty998 on December 31, 2014, 12:34:06 AM
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"?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Milizard on December 31, 2014, 06:51:04 AM
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)!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on December 31, 2014, 12:58:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 01, 2015, 04:16:26 PM
While we are grousing - data!  In Star Trek!  Data is the plural of datum - it drove me crazy.

And gay - I am just old enough to remember South Pacific - gay was happy.  It morphed. And morphed again.  So did queer - it meant odd in a slightly worrisome way.  Like a queer occurrence - should I worry about it?

Re using Latin words as if they were English - if I had to memorize the 16 irregular verbs for French, and remember which nouns were masculin and which were feminin (so glad English has dropped that, except for boats), others can learn which English words have weird plurals. They don't need to know why, although it might help.  So there! Sniff.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 01, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
Maybe what is considered "normal" or "proper" depends on the person's age and country?  After all, Americans mis-spell so many words - honour, colour, and so on.  And think they are correct.*

Plus English is full of foreign words - most people would know ninja is not Latin, but where did bungalow come from? Ranch?  It is only the words that did come directly from Latin, and used to have common usage as Latin plurals, that are debatable as to how they should be shown as plurals. 

*This is a joke.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Chaplin on January 01, 2015, 06:05:04 PM
Exactly! "Send the email to Bob and me" is correct here.

Yes, that's the point.

I think a few other people have mentioned something similar, but my mother reflexively corrected me when I said "Bob and me" to say "Bob and I," even though "Bob and me" was correct in many cases.

I sometimes wonder if other people think my grammar is incorrect when I use "Bob and me" correctly. I probably shouldn't worry about that though.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on January 13, 2015, 12:58:51 PM
Heard another one on the radio yesterday that made me twitch a little, although it is a pronunciation error and not a grammatical error:  "astericks" for "asterisk".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: dycker1978 on January 13, 2015, 02:03:01 PM
unthaw... do you me freeze or thaw
PCV Valve
ATM machine

These bother me
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on January 13, 2015, 02:35:30 PM
unthaw... do you me freeze or thaw
PCV Valve
ATM machine


These bother me

Lol.  People call these sorts of mix-ups RAS syndrome (Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome), but my personal favorite for it is PNS Syndrome (PIN Number Syndrome, or better yet Personal Identification Number Number Syndrome Syndrome).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on January 13, 2015, 02:42:55 PM
Have any of y'all read Authority and American Usage (http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf) by David Foster Wallace? According to Wikipedia, AaAU is "A 62-page review of Bryan A. Garner's A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Wallace applies George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" to grammar and the conditions of class and power in millennial American communication. While discussing the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar, Wallace digresses to discuss the legitimacy of Ebonics as opposed to "white male" standard English. Originally published as "Tense Present: Democracy, English and Wars over Usage" in the April 2001 issue of Harper's Magazine."

I think the folks in this thread (SNOOTs) will find it most entertaining.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on January 15, 2015, 04:04:08 PM
Thanks, Philociraptor, that sounds excellent.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBanker on January 16, 2015, 04:54:33 PM
There is no "s" in "anyway". Never has been, never will be.

The world doesn't understand this.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: 1967mama on January 16, 2015, 06:22:28 PM
My English 8 teacher told us, "Never use utilize."  I've always remembered that little gem!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sheepstache on January 16, 2015, 08:30:41 PM
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.

I fondly remember a fair-minded English teacher who gave us a test on this and included the sentence, "Vinnie waxes floors better than I/me." Of course, you were supposed to circle "I". Upon consideration, she realized "me" was also grammatically correct. So that question was a freebie for everyone unless they left it unanswered.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on January 16, 2015, 08:49:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on January 16, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on January 17, 2015, 08:06:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Eric on January 26, 2015, 06:49:36 PM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 26, 2015, 07:11:24 PM
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 laughed too. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 26, 2015, 07:30:27 PM
I'm reading a book titled How to Grow a Novel: The most common mistakes writers make and how to overcome them (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312267495/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0312267495&linkCode=as2&tag=lauramarieree-20&linkId=ESIZEQXCZDZHBNCO)* by Sol Stein.  Mr. Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Stein) is an accomplished editor and author with a long career publishing best-sellers.  He's written 13 books - novels included.

In this book, he advises authors edit scrupulously to avoid distracting the reader.  Chapters later, he writes,

"I ask writers to insure that there is something visual on each page."

What's wrong with that sentence?

I wouldn't get all fussy about this except for the irony in making such a mistake in a book about (among other things), not making such mistakes. 

That nit aside, the book is quite good and very helpful to me.  It has a lot of useful advice, so far as I can tell, being a newbie aspiring author and all.

*Full disclosure: this link goes through my amazon associates account.  I've not come to a conclusion whether this is appropriate or not, so until I do, I'll continue with the links and the disclosures.  Heck, a girl needs a side hustle, right? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on January 26, 2015, 08:29:52 PM
"I ask writers to insure that there is something visual on each page."

I hope he at least suggests term insurance instead of that whole life stuff.  Making good choices does help ensure good results, although one cannot have complete assurance in said results.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on January 27, 2015, 05:36:47 AM
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.

Any answer greater than one seems to imply an ambiguous set of questions. But I guess it could be one of those tests that are coded and the order of questions and answers could be random. I will retract my statement upon review.

For a long time I do not think I understood its versus it's. I have a feigned (!) memory of hearing something in seventh grade about needing context. That stayed with me until several years go when I saw a simple explanation. Wonder how often I was wrong.

I am still working on the removal of 'it could have went better' from my speech. Clueless until someone took pity and told me two years ago. Glad I seen the light. Ouch, it hurts mine ears to even type that. Weight, done got lost in my words.

Have enjoyed this thread, with the exception of the ridiculous concern over using nazi.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on February 02, 2015, 12:02:39 PM
I've been speaking with my brother a bit more than usual lately. 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.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 06, 2015, 10:19:30 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 07, 2015, 05:58:54 PM
Yes. And a bit pretentious.  "now" covers it.  One word instead of five.

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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on March 07, 2015, 06:30:18 PM
I see "lose/loose" a lot these days.

than/then
your/you're/youre (?)

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".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on March 07, 2015, 06:34:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on March 07, 2015, 07:45:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on March 07, 2015, 07:54:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on March 07, 2015, 08:08:28 PM
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.

You're right that is kinda cool. People on this forum also know how to grammar :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Megma on March 07, 2015, 08:21:22 PM
When people say less instead of fewer! Countable vs uncountable nouns people, it's not that hard!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Sunnymo on March 14, 2015, 02:53:03 AM
When people say less instead of fewer! Countable vs uncountable nouns people, it's not that hard!

This has long been a family pet peeve. Supermarkets are very visible main offender; '12 items or less' grrrrr!

I am surprised that can vs may has not come up. Can = ability; may = permission

Another one I call irregular plurals; 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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on March 14, 2015, 04:35:53 AM
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.

I think 2 and 3 here are examples where the "right" way makes sense only if you know how the word came into English. But I wouldn't want to take that to its ridiculous conclusion, because then we'd need "attorneys generals", because the word order has been retained from French, so why not the agreement on the (original) adjective, too?

Also, if we do the history thing, can/may falls apart, as they both come from words relating to ability ('can' is related to 'know' and 'cunning', 'may' is related to 'mighty').

[Sorry, my inner Word Nerd needs to jump out whenever it gets the chance!]
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Sunnymo on March 14, 2015, 05:41:30 AM

[Sorry, my inner Word Nerd needs to jump out whenever it gets the chance!]


That might be a nerd too far for me.

We would always get corrected on the can/may as children and took great delight in catching out the parents on rare occasions. My father was a German teacher and I think I pick up more grammar from him and studying German in school than all the lessons in English.

My sister has studied Latin and German as a double major at university and achieved a 4.0 GPA in Latin so she can at times be very extreme on the GN scale.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Sunnymo on March 14, 2015, 05:49:02 AM
I am surprised we are this far in and no one has posted the following (warning really NSFW or small children) (it might be best to listen with headphones)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt8_HybhM5Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt8_HybhM5Q)

I understand that most people believe this to be Monty Python but is in attributed to other parties. It is a grammar lesson that may be the only way to get the attention of some people.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on March 14, 2015, 10:58:09 AM
Agendum is singular, agenda is plural, agendas is nonsense.

TIL:  agendum.  You learn something new every day.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on March 14, 2015, 10:58:48 AM
Reminded me of a college humor sketch from a while back:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=TWgEVaXVEIqzogTakoKYDQ&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DN4vf8N6GpdM&ved=0CB4QyCkwAA&usg=AFQjCNEKHr__qAb8u9097b3k2pC9zJnJJg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=TWgEVaXVEIqzogTakoKYDQ&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DN4vf8N6GpdM&ved=0CB4QyCkwAA&usg=AFQjCNEKHr__qAb8u9097b3k2pC9zJnJJg)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on March 14, 2015, 04:28:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on March 16, 2015, 09:10:48 AM
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 agree.  Agendum is latin and not used in english.  Agenda/agendas is correct.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Apples on March 17, 2015, 03:42:55 PM
I hate when someone uses "learn" when the mean "teach".  It drives me bonkers.  I work with guys who have no idea about their/there/they're to/too, or bring/take and I try to let it all slide.  But learn/teach pushes my buttons.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Apples on March 17, 2015, 03:50:28 PM
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 from a few pages ago, but I live near the Mason-Dixon line, and I skip "to be" ALL THE TIME when speaking.  In writing I go back and forth, and sometimes need someone else to proofread an important document for me, because I don't notice that "to be" is missing.  I guess it's implied inside my head?  However, my family is also Scotch-Irish and definitely fall into the thrifty/Presbyterian Scots group, so maybe it's just been passed through the generations.  Or it could be a regional thing.  But I had a friend in college who called me out on it at least once a week, and until then I didn't know I was doing it. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: a moist sack of nickels on March 17, 2015, 07:32:03 PM
My pet peeve is people presuming to demand a rigorous approach to language despite the max planck institute linguistika having established that spoken language is universally fraught with irregularities and errors which are forgiven because conversation exists in a space of cooperation and generosity. Also when the people complaining about a supposed error are literally (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally) blind to whether the supposed error is in fact in error.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MMMaybe on March 18, 2015, 03:21:21 AM
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 would say, it needs doing. But thats a turn of phrase in England.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MMMaybe on March 18, 2015, 03:35:55 AM
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.)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 18, 2015, 07:38:04 AM
"...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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 18, 2015, 05:19:22 PM
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.)

As an American this claim would make me giggle. 

As a senior manager in a high profile company, this claim would prompt me to ask for an in-person meeting before deciding to hire them on.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: a moist sack of nickels on March 18, 2015, 09:21:20 PM
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.

Shakespeare turned tons of nouns into verbs and verbs into adjectives and so on
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cressida on March 18, 2015, 10:10:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 19, 2015, 10:39:37 AM
"...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.
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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 19, 2015, 10:40:55 AM
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.
A family member likes to describe food as "delish"   Yikes!!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on March 19, 2015, 02:44:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on March 19, 2015, 03:13:13 PM
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.

I use "maybs" every so often in in-person conversation.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on March 19, 2015, 03:25:25 PM
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?

Not using the subjunctive is one of those grammar things that secretly drives me wild.  I can't hear anyone say "If I was.." without mentally editing it to "If I were.."

I haven't looked into it, but I would think that there is a historical basis for it.  Don't most languages related to English have the equivalent? 

It's not grammar, but while I'm griping I would toss in my dislike of using nouns as verbs ("I would like to gift you a punch in the mouth.")



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Eric on March 19, 2015, 03:31:38 PM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on March 19, 2015, 06:15:38 PM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cressida on March 19, 2015, 07:29:15 PM
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*
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on March 20, 2015, 09:02:08 AM
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 think you mean cell as in cellular phone.  Get it right you damn hippy.  But totes on everything else.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 20, 2015, 10:09:02 AM
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*
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"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on March 21, 2015, 06:38:59 AM
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*

100% agree with you on the annoying trend of adults using baby talk.  I'm a grown man, and I would no more say "veggie" than I would call a cow a "moo-moo".  Little kids can get away with it, but beyond that it's just bizarre.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 22, 2015, 01:01:42 PM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 22, 2015, 08:10:49 PM
How about the misuse of the term begging the question! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on March 27, 2015, 08:30:47 AM
Another one (I'm so anal):

If you're an engaged woman, he is your fiancé or she is your fiancée.

If you are an engaged man, she is your fiancée or he is your fiancé.

Man--one E
Woman--two E's

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kriegsspiel on March 27, 2015, 12:18:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 27, 2015, 12:26:52 PM
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?

It also doesn't make sense to me when people say they're miles ahead of me (unless they are literally miles ahead of me in a race or something).  Being steps ahead makes sense, because they're not steps ahead in distance, they're steps ahead as in steps in a plan.
This is particularly true for technology. Would you say some technology is miles ahead of some other technology? I don't. I think its weird. I would say it's years ahead.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on March 27, 2015, 02:39:21 PM
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.  ;) )
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 27, 2015, 04:27:05 PM
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.  ;) )

Haha this is what I get when I'm typing on my phone and don't pay attention to what autocorrect fills in =P
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 28, 2015, 04:12:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on March 28, 2015, 07:31:24 AM
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.

This is why you shouldn't use your phone as your primary internet communication device and particularly not when you're sending important emails or something like that.  It's way too easy to misspell or not capitalize a word or miss punctuation.  I can almost always tell when someone sends me an email from their phone because of the spelling and punctuation mistakes.  Oh--and the handy "sent from my (device)" message at the bottom tips me off too.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on March 28, 2015, 07:57:48 AM
I typed accept when I meant except recently. 
Either way, it's embarrasing.

I'm pretty sure this word is missing an "s".  ;-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on March 28, 2015, 08:00:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 28, 2015, 09:48:17 AM
My husband absolutely despises it when someone talks about e.g. "Agreeing 110%."

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 28, 2015, 05:58:13 PM
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.
I feel so much better.   Thanks!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 28, 2015, 08:19:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 28, 2015, 08:45:35 PM
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.
And I can't stand 24x7x365.  Do the math! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on March 29, 2015, 11:14:34 AM

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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 29, 2015, 01:03:01 PM

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?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gift?q=gift (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gift?q=gift)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: turketron on March 29, 2015, 02:12:38 PM
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.

Similarly, I have a coworker who types "defiantly" every time he means "definitely" and has been doing so for years now. Drives me nuts!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 29, 2015, 05:36:59 PM
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. 
Definitely is one of these words.  Architect is another. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: 1967mama on March 29, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
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 :-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on March 29, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
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 :-)

My third grade teacher drilled this one into our brains by emphasizing the 'finite' part too. 

She was so good - I remember asking her how to spell 'beautiful'.  She handed me a huge dictionary and said, 'find it'.  She let me search for twenty minutes.  She didn't bail me out.  Whenever I said I couldn't find it, she'd just say, 'keep looking.  It's in there.'  At last I found it.  I never forgot the spelling after that.  She was AWESOME!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gone Fishing on March 30, 2015, 12:03:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 30, 2015, 12:17:52 PM
I would guess this has been said earlier in this very long thread, but:

I hate it when people mix up "me" and "I", etc.

"Peggy and me went to the store…"

"They bought it for Steve and I."

Ugh.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 30, 2015, 12:19:09 PM
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?

Oy. 

Related: Advance warning. (Husband hates that one.)

But even worse:

Advanced warning.

Unless you really mean that your warning is more sophisticated than mine.
 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: blue mutant on March 30, 2015, 12:55:03 PM
Fare and fair.

Somewhat unrelated, I had a letter go out prepared by an assistant (I did sign it) where beneficial was spelled benefishal. I only noticed it on reviewing the file a couple months later. D'oh
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 30, 2015, 01:01:35 PM
Fare and fair.


Also, phase and faze. 

And reign/rein.  I see "free reign" a LOT lately. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on March 30, 2015, 04:32:01 PM
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 almost certain that this is because if you type "definately", which is a reasonable enough misspelling, spell check tells you that you want "defiantly".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on March 30, 2015, 08:30:40 PM
I seem to hear a lot of verbs in the wrong past tense:

"I seen a deer."
"I had saw a deer."
"I had went to the store."
etc.

It drives me bonkers.

Also, people mix up "infer" and "imply". (I guess it bugs me more because the person is usually otherwise intelligent and articulate.)

Has anyone noticed that the phrase "in the world" is out of fashion? It's been replaced by "on the planet", e.g. "Apple is one of the largest corporations on the planet."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 30, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
Oooohhh, and then there's the need to use many syllables to appear more intelligent.

Instead of car, say vehicle.

Instead of use, say utilize.

Instead of right now, say at this particular point in time.

Etc.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 31, 2015, 03:44:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 31, 2015, 04:11:34 PM
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.

Wow, I had no idea -- that's hilarious! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Sunnymo on April 01, 2015, 03:25:22 AM
Another 'noun as verb' example...

At the Olympics competitors now 'medal' in an event instead of 'win a medal'. Argh!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on April 01, 2015, 07:15:07 AM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on April 01, 2015, 07:46:26 AM
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. 


Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on April 01, 2015, 08:49:19 AM
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? 

Yea that was really annoying. At least it only seemed to happen at the end of paragraphs (at least, the times I noticed) so it wasn't terrible, but still. What the hell?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on April 01, 2015, 10:50:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on April 01, 2015, 11:56:48 AM
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?

Well, because every language has standards of usage, and in English, succinctness is not among them. 

Interestingly enough, in "1984" Newspeak dictated invariant noun-verbs. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on April 01, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 01, 2015, 01:28:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 01, 2015, 01:30:12 PM
I have another one.

Incorrect over-use of the word "myself".

"If you have any questions, contact Jean or myself."

Dammit, that's completely incorrect.  Someone else can't contact you as "myself".  The correct word is 'me'."  Only I can contact myself. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: frugalnacho on April 01, 2015, 01:34:12 PM
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.

What a bunch of cavemen.  I prefer the term automobile.  More syllables means more smarter.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MarciaB on April 01, 2015, 06:31:07 PM
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.

I noticed that too and figured that he was sort of using paragraphs the way you use bulleted lists. Some times each bullet will be an incomplete sentence and won't have punctuation at the end... ?

I love his blog and choose to read it, despite the weird punctuation "policy" he seems to prefer. Whatever.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 01, 2015, 07:25:29 PM
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.

And back-formation of verbs?  How do those do historically?  Because I don't like these and would like to kill off the words forever.
Orientation --> Orientate.  Really!  This is apparently pretty common in some countries.  I don't understand why orient wouldn't be the correct verb.
Conversation --> Conversate  (from a doctor, no less)
Incentive --> Incentivize.  Why can't we just say offer an incentive? this word has become pervasive.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on April 01, 2015, 08:31:50 PM
Incentive --> Incentivize.  Why can't we just say offer an incentive? this word has become pervasive.

Well, technically this one's not back formation. And -ize is a fairly productive suffix. You've gotta love words like bowdlerize.  </linguistnerd>

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on April 02, 2015, 01:28:36 PM
I've heard "incent" as a verb at work a lot.  Not sure offhand if it's real or not.  "Let's incent team members to maximize their productivity this quarter."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 06, 2015, 12:37:27 PM
The verb that goes with "conversation" is "to converse".

Conversation --> Conversate  (from a doctor, no less)

Ici on parle Franglais.  So many Anglophones (yes, that is a legitimate word, thank you, at least here, it goes with Francophone and Allophone) use the French verb form in English - it would make perfect sense in French, but sounds odd in English.  Of course using similar words in the other language can cause issues - one government minister talked about rampant something, and got yelled at by the English media - in French 'rampant' means creeping, so the intended meaning was quite different.

And yes, homonyms - reign/rein, faze/phase, etc.  I blame spell check.  You have all seen this, eh?
http://www.latech.edu/tech/liberal-arts/geography/courses/spellchecker.htm (http://www.latech.edu/tech/liberal-arts/geography/courses/spellchecker.htm)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 06, 2015, 02:13:48 PM
The verb that goes with "conversation" is "to converse".

Conversation --> Conversate  (from a doctor, no less)
Yes.  I know!  So how do I tell my doctor that?  I've heard "conversate" more than once and almost choke when I do.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 06, 2015, 04:10:12 PM
I don't know.  I used to discuss writing style with my university class, and the ones that resented it the most (we don't need THIS!) were the ones that needed it the most.

The verb that goes with "conversation" is "to converse".

Conversation --> Conversate  (from a doctor, no less)
Yes.  I know!  So how do I tell my doctor that?  I've heard "conversate" more than once and almost choke when I do.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 06, 2015, 04:15:15 PM
Can we add cutely/folksy to the nail on blackboard screechers?  Along with veggies?

I am reading an on-line discussion on raising rabbits for meat.  Obviously when these are animals you are planning to eat, you are not going to call them bun-buns - but 'hoppers?  Yes that is "'hoppers", I did not add the " ' ".  It makes me think of grasshoppers.  If someone knows enough about a topic to use correct terminology (bucks, does, kindling) this is downright cutesy, and off-putting.  Gah.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Hank Sinatra on April 06, 2015, 05:20:04 PM
Hi. Long thread here. I might have missed these  so I'll beg the ol' pardon if I'm being redundant.

Along with the OP's "then" when people mean "than", I see a lot of "He should OF.." instead of "He should HAVE..."

Even the 6'oclock news guys, professional talkers, all too often will say "Eck-scape" instead of "escape".

And the never popular:  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.

These are not mere "Grammar Nazi" issues. Who vs whom. Or even their vs there. One is considered an over-refinement even by many English teachers today and never impacts the meaning anyway.  The second could just be an on-the-fly typo or editing error.  On informal internet  forums nobody is writing for the ages. I can sway with the idiomatic or argot. But "should of" for "should have". "Eck-scape" (especially from a media communicator) ,  "most everyone" ... ? 



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 07, 2015, 07:36:57 AM
They are everywhere.  New one for the list: "not for the feint of heart".

Just shoot me now.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on April 07, 2015, 09:05:24 AM
  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.

This one doesn't bother me. It's been around for hundreds of years, and is definitely a reduced for of "almost". To me, it's in the same category as "don't" or "it's".

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on April 07, 2015, 11:28:17 AM
Ugh.. Don't get me started on 'don't' and 'it's'. Why can't everyone on the internet just write in perfect prose for all their conversations. Guys it's not that hard! I'm only expecting everyone to have the same education level as me. Remember all internet debates must include a thesis.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 09, 2015, 11:00:00 AM
What's wrong with don't?  Seriously?  Now I'm afraid to speak.

Has anyone mentioned "Where's it AT?"  I hate that! 

Hi Johnny.  Where are you AT?  AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!  Stop. just stop after you.  Where are you.  That's the question. 
Washington DC news stinks because the anchors cannot even speak proper English!  I hear the "where you at?" ALL. THE. TIME. 


Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on April 10, 2015, 03:55:11 PM
What's wrong with don't?  Seriously?  Now I'm afraid to speak.

Nothing. That's my point!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 10, 2015, 04:23:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on April 10, 2015, 07:44:15 PM
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
fund's
.

                                     
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 10, 2015, 09:19:50 PM
For your consideration: http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 11, 2015, 03:28:10 PM
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
fund's
.

Lol good one, Grid! Thanks for the laugh!

                                     
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on April 11, 2015, 07:45:53 PM
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
fund's
.
 


                                     

Lol good one, Grid! Thanks for the laugh!

I think the "spoiler alert" feature is new...  It works well for some posts haha
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Riff on April 12, 2015, 12:42:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 12, 2015, 09:07:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on April 12, 2015, 09:09:51 AM
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.
It's the only way to be.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Karen on April 20, 2015, 09:13:32 AM
I used to live in Wales and had to get used to people saying stuff like "I'll do it now in a minute." At first I couldn't understand. "Well, which is it? Now, or a minute later?"

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mrpercentage on May 02, 2015, 06:44:07 PM
I stpd carign wen I reeleyezed thet I he'd no prahblem undrstand'n  wriitin lik thes. Unlass it fermal I justa dewnt kair.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on May 02, 2015, 08:01:19 PM
I stpd carign wen I reeleyezed thet I he'd no prahblem undrstand'n  wriitin lik thes. Unlass it fermal I justa dewnt kair.

Different thread, about the same content.
___________

Heard (herd) a report of someone with a BS being corrected for (four) using 'should of' and said "oh I can never keep straight (strait) when that isn't correct"

Uh, go with never.

smack right to the forehead.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on May 02, 2015, 08:05:04 PM
Oh, how does this community feel about 'snuck' instead of 'sneaked', which I believe is correct?

I also hate quote punctuation. Putting the punctuation inside the close quote just bothers me.

Edit: I believe sneaked is the correct form. I realized it was not perfectly clear.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: JenniferOnFIRE on May 02, 2015, 09:22:36 PM
"and I" when it should be "and me" (and vice versa)

I hear the wrong form of pronoun used so often in our society lately, especially in compound phrases, that it is starting to sound correct - terrible!  Use the pronoun form you would use if it was not in a compound phrase, people!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheFixer on May 02, 2015, 10:22:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on May 03, 2015, 01:45:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on May 03, 2015, 07:32:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on May 04, 2015, 06:28:46 AM
Free reign, instead of free rein.

I see that a ton.  Including on this forum!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheFixer on May 04, 2015, 06:50:46 AM
Excellent. Thanks, me gots something to reed.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/396/683/94d.png)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on May 04, 2015, 07:01:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on May 04, 2015, 07:10:35 AM
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.

I've always assumed that it's people who don't read much.  After all, since they all sound the same, the way to learn them would be from seeing them in written form.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheFixer on May 04, 2015, 07:28:33 AM
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.

Indeed.  Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on May 04, 2015, 07:55:10 AM
Excellent. Thanks, me gots something to reed.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/396/683/94d.png)

I apologize in advance for scrolling issues...

(https://i0.wp.com/1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/22/40/84e6891f312e68254a16c7c589577cc6.jpg)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on May 04, 2015, 12:50:30 PM
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".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on May 04, 2015, 01:10:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on May 04, 2015, 06:18:37 PM
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.

Yeah, certainly this will not happen. But I think it is an unfortunate fact that some people do not understand they are writing it incorrectly. I am okay with someone being wrong when they can realize it. I know I make errors, but at least it ticks me off and I try to do better.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on May 05, 2015, 08:26:40 AM
Quote
I've already started to see "you're" used as the possessive.

What does that look like?  you're's? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on May 05, 2015, 08:34:26 AM
Quote
I'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.  So, e.g:

"Can I come over to you're house?"

Ugh, it hurt my brain to type that.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on May 05, 2015, 12:43:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on May 05, 2015, 05:49:15 PM
"I'd rather be safe then sorry."

Just saw this on my FB feed.

I laughed out loud. Resisted the temptation to reply, "Really?  If I had to choose an order, I'd rather it be the reverse."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on May 05, 2015, 06:43:08 PM
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.

Well shit, now I have be on the lookout that I say 'dove'.

I am really really close to getting 'drug' out of my vocab instead of dragged.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on May 06, 2015, 09:33:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RidinTheAsama on May 08, 2015, 12:57:52 PM
The one that irks me the most is when people say "insure" when they mean "ensure".

I'm always tempted to ask if there's a deductible and what the premiums will be...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on May 08, 2015, 05:10:44 PM
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.

Well the '$' is also the sign for peso. So you could say that it is a more specific definition of the denomination.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on May 17, 2015, 09:13:22 PM
Has this been posted in this thread yet?  https://xkcd.com/326/
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on May 17, 2015, 10:15:41 PM
Has this been posted in this thread yet?  https://xkcd.com/326/

It made me effect a humorous affect...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: iris lily on May 28, 2015, 12:31:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on May 28, 2015, 02:15:51 PM
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.

If I tried to explain something to you and you did not grasp it after the attempted explanation, it might mean that I failed to explain it to you. If I tried to explain set theory to you without mentioning the axiom of union, it would be fair to say that I failed to explain set theory to you. I could then say that I tried (but failed) to explain set theory to you.

If I tried to tell you that the axiom of unrestricted comprehension leads to paradoxes and cannot be part of a logically consistent set theory, but you cut me off part way through the argument because you didn't want to hear about set theory, then I could say that I tried to tell you about naïve set theory (but you didn't let me tell you, because you weren't interested).

So, both phrases can make sense.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: blue mutant on May 28, 2015, 04:28:01 PM
I'm a lawyer and just received correspondence contemplating "dyer consequences" if we don't do what they asking for etc.... I love it when spell check fails people in formal writing.

Other pet peeves that come up often.

"We'll just have to make due"

"person x didn't fair well on the test" 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Numbers Man on May 28, 2015, 04:30:09 PM
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.

"I resemble that remark" is a classic Three Stoogies saying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEM7I5VSVjY
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Reyes01 on May 28, 2015, 05:41:23 PM
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.

Good one:-) I like that!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 09, 2015, 08:36:01 AM
Not grammar, but spelling:

It's "whoa", not "woah".

Grrrr.....
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: choppingwood on June 09, 2015, 08:31:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 09, 2015, 09:07:19 PM
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.

Meh.

1) There's an easy way to improve grammar: read a book.

2) I am actually a teacher. I teach people to communicate for a living. Most of the time, they don't even bother to listen. In a class they are taking to learn to communicate better.  Point being: if I tell them over and over, and they still don't bother, then hell yes, they are being careless.  And I am trying to prepare them to communicate correctly in a future career. 

3) I can "focus on what they are trying to communicate". But I am not paying them.  If they don't learn how to have a functional mastery of the one language they speak, that is not helpful to them professionally or personally. In an ideal world, not being able to communicate intelligently would have no impact on their lives. But that is not the world we live in.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on June 10, 2015, 10:09:41 PM
I'm a minor level grammar Nazi but when you live among the Afrikaans people who comingle English and their own version of Afrikaans constantly resulting in monstrous frankensentences (kan jy go to die shop just now now?) You learn tolerance. I draw the line with my own family though and when my 5 year old boy starts saying afrikaanisms like 'he did go' when it should be 'he went' I quickly put him in check.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: enigmaT120 on June 11, 2015, 01:09:35 PM
Not grammar, but spelling:

It's "whoa", not "woah".

Grrrr.....

How do you know the person didn't mean "Woe!"

You guys should know this:  does the exclamation point go inside or outside the quote mark?

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 11, 2015, 02:12:55 PM


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"!

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on June 11, 2015, 10:37:53 PM



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"!

^5 awesome


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on June 24, 2015, 04:09:32 PM
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"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 24, 2015, 04:49:35 PM
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"

Oh my God, how has this not been mentioned yet?!?!?!??????!!!!  A thousand times yes!!!!!!!


Or, should I say, a "thousand" times yes?  ;)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on June 24, 2015, 09:42:15 PM
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/
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on June 25, 2015, 07:34:38 AM
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/

Hee hee! So painful to read those. Thanks!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Jon_Snow on June 25, 2015, 08:24:09 AM
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: brooklynguy on June 25, 2015, 08:38:44 AM
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?)).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on June 25, 2015, 10:17:28 AM
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?)).

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.

(I love nested parentheses by the way (not sure why other people don't use them more often).)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on June 25, 2015, 10:21:54 AM
It is very unlikely I could be friends with grammar nazi types. Talk about being wound up WAY too tight.

For the Watch!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on June 27, 2015, 12:09:44 AM
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'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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on June 27, 2015, 12:40:53 AM
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).

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on June 27, 2015, 01:16:18 AM
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).

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.
Oh, man, I like, love this answer, ya know? (Sorry, couldn't help it. I really do like your perspective, Cathy.)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on June 27, 2015, 09:50:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on June 27, 2015, 06:21:56 PM
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.

"went and did"?  Nice!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on June 27, 2015, 06:45:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on June 27, 2015, 06:55:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on June 27, 2015, 07:00:02 PM


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 think only the U.S. actually considers quoted punctuation a way to correctly end a sentence.  I think it's much clearer when there's a full separation of ideas inside and outside the quotes (and no associated commas, inside or outside the quotes):

He said "I hate it when people misspell words!".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on June 27, 2015, 07:02:29 PM
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?)).

This was legitimately fun to read.

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.


Yay!  I do it for clarity's sake.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on June 28, 2015, 04:53:22 AM


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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on June 28, 2015, 04:56:36 AM
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.
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/quiz/43913_1217882160595_271_229.jpg)
"I was young - and reckless!"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on June 28, 2015, 10:56:20 PM

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.

That's useful but it doesn't help to distinguish whether a comma, semicolon, ellipse or em-dash would be the most suitable punctuation for a natural pause.

I find myself using the ellipse all the time in informal chat (like forums and whatsapp) to punctuate my writing, as it seems to mimic the stream of consciousness of natural speech better than a comma. It's bad English but it feels like it works.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: monarda on June 29, 2015, 03:59:08 PM
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.   

Or while we're at it, "nukular" for nuclear!!

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: forummm on June 29, 2015, 04:53:09 PM
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?



;)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 29, 2015, 05:03:14 PM
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...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on June 29, 2015, 09:47:23 PM

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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 30, 2015, 07:08:36 AM

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

Ha!  True enough.  I should have known better than to get lazy in my punctuation in this thread.  I picked this up from French many years ago, in which language it is an appropriate use.  I like it for the evocative "trailing off" of the voice it implies.  But I wouldn't use that punctuation in formal writing (nor, probably, would I be talking about my sphincter clenching).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Candace on June 30, 2015, 08:31:07 AM
Most of the above grammar-related offenses bug me. But they bug me five times as much when I see them on CNN's website, in the New York Times, or in corporate materials, or in important personal correspondence. I'm trying to relax about bad grammar in informal speech and informal writing. But in more or less official material, I can't stand it.

My grammar isn't perfect by far, but it's probably better than 99% of native English speakers.

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. Of course I think that speaking badly is less relaxing because it's dissonant and requires more effort to understand, but he doesn't see it that way. Since he almost never complains about anything, and tends to put up with a lot, I have to conclude that my correcting him bothers him a fair amount since he took pains to bring it up. So I'm gritting my teeth and not letting the sounds escape my mouth when he uses bad grammar. I have just asked him to please never do it around my parents :-).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: secondcor521 on June 30, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
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!!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 30, 2015, 09:01:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on June 30, 2015, 09:31:01 AM
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?
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on June 30, 2015, 09:39:27 AM
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?

Both are correct. The rule Kris gives above is a common prescriptivist rule, but it doesn't accurately state native English use and it doesn't need to be followed unless you want to avoid tickling the feathers of some people.

You should avoid using "that" to introduce a nonrestrictive clause because it will be jarring to native speakers, but using "which" is correct for either kind of clause. It also does not need to be preceded by a comma because the only rule on commas is the one I gave in my previous post (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/grammar-nazi/msg710638/#msg710638).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on June 30, 2015, 09:47:18 AM
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!!

Also, let me add that another way to check is this: if you can remove the word completely, you should use "that."  Example: "Here is the banana I plan to eat."

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: OttoVonBisquick on June 30, 2015, 11:36:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on June 30, 2015, 12:15:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: OttoVonBisquick on June 30, 2015, 12:19:06 PM
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.

Will do. Also, found a fun little book called "Schottenfreude", which describes fun (and, as you alluded to with your sentence, verbose) words that exist in German (although likely rarely used) to describe complex feelings or emotions.

Plan on buying it sometime soon, as I'm weirdly addicted to the sound of the language, and I think it would be fun to boost my vocabulary with these funny little sayings.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on June 30, 2015, 01:06:54 PM
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"?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: forummm on June 30, 2015, 01:54:18 PM
Walla instead of voila.

My dad once kept saying "fawalla" and I couldn't figure out why. Eventually I figured out it was "voila". He also spelled it out wrong when I was trying to figure out what the "word" was.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Candace on June 30, 2015, 01:59:45 PM
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"?

I mean he'll say things like "I don't like them grammar nazis" or "He don't care if he sounds dumb". [Edited with a second example]
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: enigmaT120 on June 30, 2015, 02:38:44 PM
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.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on July 01, 2015, 10:37:15 AM
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?

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on July 01, 2015, 04:55:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on July 02, 2015, 01:16:00 AM
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.


Well, slap my ass and tell me to stop whinging. 

I still don't like it, even if I'm dead wrong.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on July 02, 2015, 01:36:37 AM
Whinge is perfectly fine English. It's more of a British term than American. You don't like it because of culture, nothing more. However, the correct gerund form is whingeing. There's a subtle difference between whine and whinge - whining is quite stringent, and whingeing is peevish. It's basically the same though.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on July 02, 2015, 03:18:34 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 04, 2015, 11:04:22 AM
Whingeing - the non-Brits among us got it from Harry Potter. It does add another word to our vocabulary. I appreciated being able to tell DD to stop whinging, she got what I meant right away.
And now I suppose I am also banned from Jon_Snow's island   ;-(
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 04, 2015, 04:53:48 PM
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."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on July 04, 2015, 08:24:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 04, 2015, 08:31:24 PM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on July 04, 2015, 08:33:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 04, 2015, 08:34:33 PM
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.

Cathy where do you know this stuff from?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: marty998 on July 04, 2015, 08:35:43 PM
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.

Well when you set a challenge someone is going to take it on. I found one Sol! Looked up your profile, picked one page of posts at random (page 36) and here it is:

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.

Funny how in the thousands of your posts I never noticed the double space until you pointed it out just now :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on July 04, 2015, 08:38:15 PM
Cathy where do you know this stuff from?

Here is one source regarding the status of "than" as a conjunction versus a preposition: https://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/t.html#thani

According to that source, "people have been treating than as a preposition for centuries".

That said, my claim was just subjectively based on reading historical texts over the years.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on July 04, 2015, 08:52:00 PM
Well when you set a challenge someone is going to take it on. I found one Sol!

Since making that challenge, I've grown suspicious that several of the phones I've used over the years use single spaces.  So there are probably lots more, from cases when I wasn't using a physical keyboard.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 04, 2015, 10:10:59 PM
When I learned to type, on a manual typewriter, we always put 2 spaces after a period because one space wasn't much.  With proportional fonts on computers one space often looks OK. I still tend to use two out of habit, but not on a tablet keyboard (like now) when typing is a pain.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on July 05, 2015, 12:52:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 05, 2015, 02:52:34 PM
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.

Glad to know I'm not the only one.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on July 06, 2015, 12:41:42 AM
I used to be quite a rigid proponent of the double space rule, but this article convinced me otherwise:

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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Candace on July 06, 2015, 09:47:08 AM
I used to be quite a rigid proponent of the double space rule, but this article convinced me otherwise:

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
+1

That article, or one similar to it, changed my mind as well. I'm now in the single-space camp.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on July 06, 2015, 09:51:21 AM
I used to be quite a rigid proponent of the double space rule, but this article convinced me otherwise:

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
+1

That article, or one similar to it, changed my mind as well. I'm now in the single-space camp.

Not helping this habit is the fact that the iPhone keyboard has a feature in which entering two spaces autocorrects to a period and a space. I'm typing 2 spaces and getting 1, which is technically correct but still involves entering two spaces. After reading a similar article (or maybe that one, I don't remember) I've been working to change to single-space as well.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Rezdent on July 06, 2015, 08:57:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on July 07, 2015, 07:19:37 AM
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."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 07, 2015, 08:14:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on July 07, 2015, 09:22:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on July 07, 2015, 09:47:25 AM
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.
This thread has mostly irritated me since I participated (who knew it would stay active for so long?), but this made me laugh. Thanks.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on July 08, 2015, 10:06:45 AM
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 don't know the word, either, but here's something funny about the word improvement: In the field of civil engineering, an "improvement" is any man-made thing on a piece of land. So, any building, sidewalk, water line, parking lot, fence, power pole, electric line, curb, storm drain, you name it, is an "improvement" on that land.

Thoreau must be spinning in his grave.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on July 08, 2015, 10:56:28 AM
Verschlimmbesserung
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on July 08, 2015, 02:44:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on July 08, 2015, 02:51:58 PM
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."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 08, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on July 08, 2015, 04:04:54 PM
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 think it's fine when writing dialogue,  since it's an imitation of the way some people speak (myself included).

I wouldn't write them outside of very informal speech, though.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: gReed Smith on July 08, 2015, 04:46:54 PM
Overuse/misuse of the word "eclectic."  Particularly people who describe themselves as eclectic.  Aside from a handful of ancient Greek philosophers, the modern word generally refers to a construct drawn from the best of a variety of sources.  Only Frankenstein's monster could be eclectic.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on July 09, 2015, 07:04:51 AM
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."

It's a complete abomination. As is y'all. And to think I might move to Texas.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on July 09, 2015, 10:29:42 AM
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.

I've never seen them, but I sure have heard them. I guess it's only a matter of time before they hit the pages everywhere, sigh.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 09, 2015, 04:03:56 PM
Facebook feed:
"Looks like the neckless I got you"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on July 10, 2015, 07:42:21 AM
Facebook feed:
"Looks like the neckless I got you"

Wow. Kind of somehow reminds me of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: "One of those no-neck monsters hit me with some ice-cream."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverwood on July 10, 2015, 04:28:13 PM
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.



Nice to know others feel this way.  Maybe we aren't "cool"  ? Haha
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on July 10, 2015, 04:58:24 PM
This is a thread full of people complaining about the way other people use grammar.  No one here is cool.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 10, 2015, 07:49:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on July 10, 2015, 08:01:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 10, 2015, 08:05:54 PM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 13, 2015, 06:55:17 AM
Mais oui, nous sommes la creme de la creme.  Les pauvres autres.

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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Jon_Snow on July 13, 2015, 03:28:32 PM
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. :)

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on July 13, 2015, 06:20:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on July 13, 2015, 07:26:50 PM
And some comments are made with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while visions of Inspector Clouseau mouthing the words occupy the imagination. ;)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bumbling Bee on July 13, 2015, 08:57:20 PM
How about the misuse of the term begging the question!

+1,000,000.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on July 16, 2015, 08:59:00 AM
A few weeks ago, I saw someone write "come uppins" instead of "comeuppance."

FB is a constant source of amusement.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: cerebus on July 17, 2015, 11:15:48 PM

A few weeks ago, I saw someone write "come uppins" instead of "comeuppance."

FB is a constant source of amusement.

Wow that's so redneck, I love it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 18, 2015, 05:08:15 AM
Dammed with faint praise.  Actually, I have rarely aspired to be cool, so maybe this is "good".

In a professional/academic environment, people will be judged for their written work (as well as everything else, of course).  The basic issue in all this is you want people to pay attention to what you are saying in your writing (and take your information seriously), not how you wrote your information.  Bad/sloppy writing is a distraction.  Look how distracted people on this thread get when they see bad writing, they totally lose track of the message.

I found the students who wrote clearly also thought clearly, and the students who wrote sloppily tended to think sloppily.  Editing is a great tool, but most people think they write everything perfectly the first time through and don't need to edit.

Let's face it, if someone writes something poorly on FB, it is not a huge issue.  If someone writes badly in a scientific paper, or a grant application, or a CV, it can be a major problem.

And I hope I was clear, because I haven't had my coffee yet  :-(    Dangerous writing before coffee.  But I did use the Preview button.

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. :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on July 18, 2015, 03:00:10 PM
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...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bumbling Bee on July 18, 2015, 03:16:03 PM
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...

Drown it in molasses? That is indeed cruel and vicious.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on July 19, 2015, 08:13:34 AM
I have no idea how you would kill a dog, or any living thing for that matter, in a viscous way...

One could argue that flypaper leads to a viscous death.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on July 19, 2015, 08:16:02 AM
Drown it in molasses? That is indeed cruel and vicious.
It's happened before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on July 20, 2015, 11:00:45 AM
Drown it in molasses? That is indeed cruel and vicious.
It's happened before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood).

I'm glad you posted that, since it was my first thought, but the link was wonky. FTFY.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on July 20, 2015, 11:27:41 AM
Weird, wonder how that happened.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on July 21, 2015, 08:52:35 PM
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.

Which could be another thread - for example, basic competency in driving should include driving in the 'driving' lane, not using any of the 'overtaking' lanes unless... overtaking! In other words - don't be a middle lane hog! But I digress.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on July 22, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
I just moved into the city, and I'm walking everywhere now. One thing I've noticed is how bad most drivers are. They just don't understand the rules of the roads.

Come to a stop sign and not know who has the right of way.

Speeding up really fast - and then braking really hard - between stop signs.

And as a pedestrian I have many cars come to a complete stop and wait for me to cross the road, even though I am on the sidewalk not even entering the street.

I can't wait for driverless cars!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on August 10, 2015, 10:06:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/0MA7DrU.png?1)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on August 22, 2015, 02:25:19 PM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on August 22, 2015, 03:46:11 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on August 22, 2015, 10:46:53 PM
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...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on August 23, 2015, 01:48:48 AM
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 :)

Yes! Sort of pre-Chanel. Not sure of the exact year, but in the I cropped photo her dress is clearly Edwardian. I had the photo printed onto a canvas and it's on my bedroom wall. I think it must have been just after I saw the film "Coco Before 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...

Exactly. Just quietly insert "'ve", no need to tell anyone, and we can all get on with our lives knowing that there is one fewer error in the world. My assumption is that through unconscious imitation and peer pressure, everyone's linguistic standard would improve without anyone really noticing.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on August 23, 2015, 02:12:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on August 23, 2015, 02:30:08 AM
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.

YES. YES IT IS. (Phew! Needed to get that one off my chest! :P) (The poster could, I note, have meant "I acquired" in which case "I got" would have been alright, but as it's been mentioned on this thread I assume not.)

I foresee a problem with the grammar mods... Correcting each other!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on August 23, 2015, 02:39:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on August 23, 2015, 02:47:08 AM
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.

I suppose if there were doubt you could message the poster to ask, but in my fantasy world no one knows about the grammar mods except the grammar mods - we'd just zip about doing our thing with nothing but the warm glow of knowing we're grammaring right to reward us.

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"...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Hey It's Me on August 23, 2015, 06:59:41 AM
Going beyond grammar, improper spelling drives me up a wall also. You couldn't be bothered to give your sentence a once-over before hitting send? Phones have spellcheck now!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on August 23, 2015, 07:22:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on August 23, 2015, 08:20:17 AM
Also, the "I got" example was a little trickier than the things I had in mind.

Yeah, it's a dialect difference falling out from languages being fuzzy about the boundaries between past actions and their current results. Here in Newfoundland almost everybody says "I got". Americans are leaning toward (towards?) "I've got" and mainland Canadians toward "I have". This messes up second language learners... Jacob from ERE uses "I got" almost exclusively.

Now we need grammar mods with a dialectology degree! Or else they'll be correcting Americans when they say "I just ate", or Brits when they say "I've just eaten".

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on August 25, 2015, 05:03:02 AM
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!

I would like that too, with the exception that I would like to be notified when corrections are applied to my writing. I'm a bit of a grammar snob, but as I've found out on this thread, am also incorrect at times. I'd like to know so I can correct myself in the future.  I grew up with a mother who corrected every error as I spoke and I no longer have that. I find myself picking up the habits of others and misusing language too often.

One of the worst things I see is when someone corrects proper use of object pronouns.   Then I have to correct them and say, no, I was correct and you are not. (I think! )

I also hate "whomever" even when it is used correctly. So I never use it.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Basenji on August 25, 2015, 06:47:04 AM
How have I missed this thread before? My people! I'd love a secret grammar/spelling mod as long as profanity used for emphasis and humor and the obviously ironic use of slang/neologisms/nonstandard English would be spared. Amirite?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: brooklynguy on August 25, 2015, 07:30:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on August 25, 2015, 11:20:47 AM
I found myself grammar-nazi-ing the other day, and got pushback! I emailed the CBC to suggest they replace "staunch" with "stanch" in an article about  the hemorrhaging Chinese economy, and the quickly replied to tell me that their style guide requires "staunch"! Apparently this is a distinction that the entire rest of the planet stopped worrying about and didn't tell me.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Basenji on August 25, 2015, 11:49:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: KittyCat on August 25, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
This one was mentioned before: using "whom" incorrectly.

Another one that gets to me is the confusion between "me" and "I", and it happens quite frequently. "Me and her will do it." "Want to go to the store with so-and-so and I?"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on August 25, 2015, 12:53:14 PM
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...
...nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Basenji on August 25, 2015, 02:17:36 PM
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...
...nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition!

Damn it, so good. So so good.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Maigahane on August 25, 2015, 02:29:50 PM
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."
Ha. I've done double contractions a few times, though always when writing as a dialogue.

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". And these two friends read a lot so prior commenters' theories that reading helps grammar/spelling isn't foolproof

Plus I just spent a lot of time proofreading my comment checking for errors
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on August 26, 2015, 07:39:33 AM
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...
...nobody expects the Grammar Inquisition!

MDM wins the thread!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cheddar Stacker on August 27, 2015, 09:58:20 AM
since/sense/cents

Why not throw scents into that mix?

The English language is simply crazy.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on August 27, 2015, 03:03:55 PM

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on August 27, 2015, 05:58:18 PM

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.

Is there no depravity that humanity has not yet explored?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MMMaybe on August 27, 2015, 11:35:59 PM
I need this...(maybe we all do!)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FLA on August 27, 2015, 11:45:05 PM
I cannot tell you how often I was called the HoSPIC nurse over the years.  That always made me cringe, just having that whole Spic reference even though they didn't know the real name for hospice.  No one was being racist. 

If you are a Grammar Nazi, nursing is not for you.  You meet the sweetest people who have horrible grammar and you do not care.  Even if your inner GN is pushing to come out. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on August 28, 2015, 04:16:32 AM
What's up with "acrost the board"

Do people spell it this way too, or is this just some weird pronunciation.  I'm talking about highly educated people.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Maigahane on August 28, 2015, 07:32:49 AM
since/sense/cents

Why not throw scents into that mix?

The English language is simply crazy.
Lol, I thought of that one after posting this but haven't seen that one get messed up like the others


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.
I wish it wasn't real, I really do
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on August 28, 2015, 11:29:25 AM
I hear "heighth" a lot, but don't often see it written that way.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: AllieVaulter on August 28, 2015, 02:53:07 PM
I'm not a grammar nazi at all.  I read a lot, but I'm hard pressed to actually know the terminology associated with grammar.  I usually make word choices based on "which sounds right".  (Apparently, I'm also in the camp that thinks quotations go with the phrase and don't always end outside punctuation...)  I've found this thread thoroughly fascinating.  And educational.  Thanks for that.

Despite my non-expertise, I'll put another vote in the Oxford comma camp.  I always use them.  As Cathy said, they just make things more clear.  I'm all for simple and clear speech.  (This is also why my writing tends towards short sentences.  I'm uncertain of the rules for more complicated and longer sentences, so I just don't write them).  Even here, I'm thinking "hmmm... the comma in that last sentence is probably supposed to be a semicolon... 

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? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RidinTheAsama on August 28, 2015, 05:13:24 PM
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?

Unless you are in some odd lines of work I hope you are not often having to speak about drownding demonds!  And with the word use being so infrequent I can see why you are still working to break your bad habits - not enough repetition!

I recommend seeking out an old and haunted rec-center where you could become a life guard or pool maintenance professional.  Should provide good opportunities to accelerate your learning curve.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on September 03, 2015, 11:41:06 AM
  Anyone know of a region that inserts "d" into random words?

This is almost certainly hypercorrection -- people who speak one of the many dialects that simplify syllable-final consonant clusters (as in "I get aroun'" for "I get around") often insert some extra Ts and Ds just to be on the safe side. Sometimes a few words become especially frequently hypercorrected. Drown>drownd is one of them; another I've heard pretty often is "hearst" for "hearse". It's basically the same as the "Warshington" example you give, except for t/d instead of R. (Another one I hear a lot is "Chicargo").
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 04, 2015, 10:22:36 AM
I've heard drownded and spayded, I assume they meant drowned and spayed.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: AllieVaulter on September 04, 2015, 10:46:24 AM
I've heard drownded and spayded, I assume they meant drowned and spayed.

I don't know...  I could easily see "spaded" mean "getting brained with a spade".  It all depends on whether or not there's a "y" in the word.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: kiwichick on September 05, 2015, 05:05:52 PM
People who say "brought" when they clearly mean "bought". It does my head in.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MMMaybe on September 05, 2015, 06:47:49 PM
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'.



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 08, 2015, 11:44:47 AM
Good for him.  It irks me when there is bad grammar in a song, just to get the rhyme, especially when I can come up with an equally good, grammatically correct, alternate. 

Think Bryan Adams "Run to You"  "She says her love for me could never die
But that'd change if she ever found out about you and I"

He could have said "She says her love for me will always be
But that'd change if she ever found out about you and me"

Thank you all for the chance to vent  ;-)

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'.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on September 23, 2015, 07:21:31 AM
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."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Maigahane on September 23, 2015, 08:23:20 AM
Hangry is when you're so hungry you're angry and need a snickers :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on September 23, 2015, 09:39:27 AM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on September 23, 2015, 10:33:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FatCat on September 23, 2015, 03:18:11 PM
I always find it funny when someone is correcting someone's grammar or spelling and makes several grammatical and spelling mistakes while doing so.

I tend to notice when people mix up its and it's. I think I notice it more often because it's one of those mistakes that ends up making it into professional advertisements.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on September 27, 2015, 06:35:07 AM
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?



Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Grid on September 27, 2015, 12:38:18 PM
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".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Bardo on September 28, 2015, 05:32:38 AM
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 see.  Thanks.  I suppose that as a Grammar Nazi I always have somewhat of an internal recoil towards slang and neologisms. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on September 28, 2015, 08:29:28 AM
I always find it funny when someone is correcting someone's grammar or spelling and makes several grammatical and spelling mistakes while doing so.

With that in mind, I suggest you review all 10 pages of this thread and make us a list of the grammar and spelling mistakes people have made while correcting someone else's grammar and spelling mistakes.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 02, 2015, 08:00:02 AM
Capitals!  I have seen people mention frozen on various web sites, and I think of the adjective, as in "my dinner is frozen, I need to thaw it", and they are talking about Frozen, the Disney movie.  Uppercase/lowercase makes a difference!  Remember the old Polish/polish reminder?

Of course incorrect homonyms are all over the place, sigh.  Rain/rein/reign seems to be a hard one for people to manage these days.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on October 02, 2015, 09:55:37 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 02, 2015, 01:13:41 PM
Textese - no grammar, no punctuation, no spelling.

Remember Avril Lavigne's Sk8er boi?

I once saw an email a student sent to a professor asking for a major favour.  It looked like it was composed on a cell phone.  It was so bad that once we removed all identifying information, we all used it as an example for our students of "what not to do!".

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 02, 2015, 05:18:19 PM
Is the word "feeling" being replaced by "feel"?

Quote from reddit: "I know this feel"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on October 03, 2015, 01:10:52 AM
That's a neologism and a fun one at that. Normally you'll use it with an 's' - so if a movie's a tearjerker you say it gives you all the feels or that you have all the feels, for example.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on October 03, 2015, 08:56:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on October 03, 2015, 01:15:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2015, 01:29:34 PM
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.

Exactly,  I very much enjoy the playfulness and rich imagery of many neologisms.  The potential for creative expression is one of the things I find most pleasurable about language in general.  But I find it irritating to the extreme when I see language being changed by default because legions of people don't understand grammar
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on October 04, 2015, 01:57:43 AM
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.

That's always my scale for judgement - do I think they are saying X because they don't know that it's supposed to be Y (fiery doom! Imbecile! Repent of your stupid ways!), or because they are making a kind of joke by deliberately being wrong/colloquial (I do this a lot online because it adds tone to an otherwise flat piece of text)?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 07, 2015, 07:32:30 PM
Not grammar but pronunciation - nobody seems to pronounce the "i" in the word "verbiage". It comes out "verbage". Drives me nuts.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on October 08, 2015, 03:40:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on October 08, 2015, 04:06:15 PM
In another thread, and at our local grocery store, things "can't be beat". Can't be beaten, surely.

Going back two pages, but I'd never heard or seen "stanch" vs "staunch". "He was a staunch advocate of xyz", for example. And yes, "staunch the flow".

Ooh, capital letter on an And. Look at me go. Naughty naughty.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 08, 2015, 04:38:31 PM
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 "carriage-marriage" analogy is a good one and I hadn't thought of it. I do think it started as a dialect thing (southern) but has caught on everywhere. There are certain sounds dropped in southern speech, for example in North Carolina the word "field" will be pronounced "filled". So I can understand southerners saying "verbage", but the rest of the country has no excuse.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on October 09, 2015, 06:23:36 AM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on October 09, 2015, 09:13:41 AM
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 heart linguistics!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2015, 09:24:12 AM
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!!!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 10, 2015, 12:14:34 PM
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!!!

Because we're living in a post-knowledge world :) Carrying around knowledge in your head is so 20th century, that's what computers are for. If spellcheck doesn't flag it, it must be correct.

Either that, or it was always this way and the internet just exposes us to the writing of many more people.

I've developed a new respect for English teachers. They must weep every day.


Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on October 10, 2015, 01:12:58 PM
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!!!

Plural possessives are the only version of that construction that doesn't pronounce both instances of the letter S.  When you talk about the boss's house or James's house the princess's house, you say them both.  If you put a bunch of princesses together in a house, then you don't pronounce the possessive S when you talk about the princesses' house.

So I get why people get that one wrong. It's pronounced identically to the house belonging to a single parent, it's just more confusing because we hardly ever talk about the house belonging to a single parent because parents are typically a matched set, and thus almost always referred to in the plural.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on October 11, 2015, 01:30:09 PM
I saw a new one today in the forums - "tea totaler". But then maybe it was appropriate, because the thread's OP considered tea a recreational drug.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on October 12, 2015, 03:41:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on October 12, 2015, 03:49:26 PM
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

;D
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on November 10, 2015, 02:44:15 PM
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....
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on November 10, 2015, 04:18:09 PM
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....

Lol!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on January 02, 2016, 01:26:57 PM
"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?'
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 03, 2016, 01:42:18 PM
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  ;-)

"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?'
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on January 04, 2016, 09:20:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on January 05, 2016, 01:23:38 AM
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").
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on January 05, 2016, 08:48:30 AM
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.

Woo hoo! Made my day! Thanks for letting me know!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 06, 2016, 06:43:05 AM
Feel free to ban "right" at the end of a sentence, I hate it too.  I am Canadian, so no pain, there is always "eh?"  ;-)

So I'm OK, eh?

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").
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on January 06, 2016, 11:50:15 AM
NOOOOoooooo!  I use "so," at the beginning of sentences.  "Therefore" is so much longer.

I think the issue is not when using "so" in place of "therefore".  That makes sense.  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"?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on January 06, 2016, 06:30:21 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on January 06, 2016, 07:48:59 PM
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"?

I had hardly noticed that this was happening till somebody brought it to my attention. I have to admit I kinda like it. It seems to be used mostly by fairly well-educated younger folks, and it really does fill a gap in the system. You can use it to mean "introducing a topic here" or "let me fill you in on some background" or "here's the deal"... it's short, it's a natural outgrowth from an earlier use of "so"... what's not to like?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on January 07, 2016, 10:05:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 07, 2016, 10:55:51 PM
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.

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..."

TBH, I'm sure I've started a few posts with "so,"  but in my defense, I was young, foolish, and desperate for upvotes. (Yes, I too can be a bore).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on January 08, 2016, 12:06:26 AM
You mean a boor?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 08, 2016, 12:49:57 AM
You mean a boor?

YES!  I even looked it up in an online dictionary because  'bore' felt wrong. I found a definition here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bore), so I went with it.  I'll admit, it didn't feel right.

Evolving language?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: NinetyFour on January 08, 2016, 05:27:29 AM
Lake Superior State University's 41st Annual List of Banished Words (http://www.lssu.edu/banished/)

So, if the wordsmiths at Lake Superior State University get their way, this is the last time a story lead like this will ever make it into print or broadcast.

Answering a question by beginning with the word "so" is just one of a dozen forms of wordplay that made it onto LSSU's 41st annual List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness.


SO

So the word that received the most nominations this year was already banished, but today it is being used differently than it was in 1999, when nominators were saying, “I am SO down with this list!”  Nominations came from across the country.

    “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..." – Bob Forrest, Tempe Ariz.

    “Tune in to any news channel and you’ll hear it. The word serves no purpose in the sentence and to me is like fingernails on a chalkboard. So, I submit the extra, meaningless, and overused word ‘so.’” – Scott Shackleton, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.

    “Politicians, especially, are using this word when asked a question and not answering said question. It is used by all parties in Canada's Federal election. – Karen Newton, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

    “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! – Thomas H. Weiss, Mt. Pleasant, Mich.

    “So it's getting really annoying. So can we please put a stop to this?” – David G. Simpson, Laurel, Md.

    “It has become widespread to the point of an epidemic,” said a sickened John from Philadelphia, Penn.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Jon_Snow on January 08, 2016, 10:37:42 AM

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...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 08, 2016, 10:39:20 AM
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.

The one I've seen lately that bothers me most is using defiantly or definately instead of definitely
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on January 08, 2016, 12:43:34 PM

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...

So yeah, the only time that bugs me...shit!!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 08, 2016, 01:19:25 PM
"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"?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on January 08, 2016, 01:37:20 PM
"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"?

Uh were you quoting me because it reminded you of that, or because you thought I used "irregardless"? Because I didn't.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 08, 2016, 03:02:08 PM
So, irregardless, you defiantly reminded me.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on January 08, 2016, 03:13:24 PM
So, irregardless, you defiantly reminded me.

Excellent! Haha
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on January 08, 2016, 03:58:56 PM
heighth - it's height folks, yes I know all the other expressions of size have a "th", width, depth, length, but this one, well, it's just height - with a hard t at the end.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on January 08, 2016, 04:04:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on January 08, 2016, 04:12:49 PM
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 :)

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 08, 2016, 04:25:42 PM
Jooles I would go absolutely nuts.

I used to work with a guy who said "ole" for oil and "shar" for shower and "hep" for help. Just kill me now.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on January 09, 2016, 06:49:05 PM
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".


But throat clearing isn't meaningless! These are all just efficient ways of organizing discourse, prepping the listener/reader for where you're going, and all that. Unless you're one of those wacky people who thinks that the point of conversation is to transmit information efficiently from one person to another. :-)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: zinethstache on January 10, 2016, 12:03:29 AM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on January 10, 2016, 05:18:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on January 10, 2016, 05:51:39 AM
It's prolly not that.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 10, 2016, 12:34:48 PM
It's prolly not that.

Ain't it? Well I a'reckon not then.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on January 11, 2016, 01:51:05 PM
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!"
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on January 11, 2016, 02:07:31 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on January 11, 2016, 02:20:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 11, 2016, 04:28:15 PM
Ignorant of proper behaviour?  That would make sense.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Primm on January 12, 2016, 04:58:56 AM
Someone at work today put a notice on our electronic noticeboard. They were selling some furniture.

Including a Chester Draws.

*sigh*
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on January 12, 2016, 06:33:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on January 12, 2016, 10:13:38 AM
Someone at work today put a notice on our electronic noticeboard. They were selling some furniture.

Including a Chester Draws.

*sigh*

So a book then? Of Chester drawing? Haha
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on January 12, 2016, 07:15:52 PM
Someone at work today put a notice on our electronic noticeboard. They were selling some furniture.

Including a Chester Draws.

*sigh*
I've always wanted one of those! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Malaysia41 on January 13, 2016, 04:51:30 AM
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!"

My husband, bless his heart,  pronounces the word 'which' like this: IIR(pronunciation syntax)C: /wutsh/

Drives me friggin' monkey bananas every time. And I keep it to myself, because it's petty.  Also, his entire family does not seem to understand the concept that 'her' is a direct object and not a subject F'n'A. FFS. But I keep that shit to myself... besides sharing it with all y'all.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on January 14, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
Let's be kind and assume that the person he was talking to tends to ramble and/or vent.  In that case, "Just give me the details" would mean "Don't tell me all the circumstances and extras, just the important part."

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on January 16, 2016, 06:30:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on January 16, 2016, 06:39:04 PM
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.  Don't know whether that makes me more or less easily satisfied....
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on January 16, 2016, 07:28:30 PM
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 broadly as "the sum of all payments secured by a mortgage". A property owner frequently will grant a mortgage to a bank not only as security for a loan, but also as security for the payment of property taxes and insurance. E.g., In re Rorie, 98 BR 215 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15584092832398830483), 217 n 1 (Bankr Ct ED PA 1989) ("The mortgage agreement called for the mortgagor to escrow monthly with the mortgagee payments for real estate taxes and insurance").

By contrast, as a matter of ordinary English, the term "mortgage loan payment" should probably include only the amounts related to the loan (i.e. interest and principal payment). However, in the context of a specific document, the terms may be given other meanings. For example, the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Security Instruments (http://www.freddiemac.com/uniform/unifsecurity.html) generally define the term "loan" to include "all sums due under this [document]", which is broader than the ordinary meaning of "loan". If one wants to refer exclusively to the interest and principal payment, the only unambiguous option might be to write "the interest and principal payment".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on January 16, 2016, 08:50:04 PM
I think the term "mortgage payment" could be construed....

Yes, it can indeed be construed in many ways, leading to the problem of deciphering which way is meant.

In http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/how-to-write-a-'case-study'-topic/ there is this suggestion: "For mortgage payments, separate the P&I (which stop when the mortgage is paid) from the T&I (and anything else) which continue as long as you own the property."

Unfortunately, said suggestion is often overlooked....
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Zx on January 16, 2016, 11:10:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on January 17, 2016, 08:04:34 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Silverado on January 23, 2016, 04:41:33 AM
This is from the oil-stock market thread. It was like playing a game counting the number of errors. Weird to see perpetuate And the incorrect form of their/they're/there in the same paragraph.

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.

As for the use of mortgage, my bank sends a piece a paper to me (they refuse to go paperless!) each month that says at the top 'Mortgage Statement' then has a field 'you owe'. They drop the 'loan' terminology so I will defer to them. Since they own the house, they may set the vocabulary.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on January 23, 2016, 07:34:12 AM
They don't own the house, you do.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: PhysicianOnFIRE on February 02, 2016, 09:49:23 PM
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.

Doesn't everybody have ammonia in their pantry?

I seen what you did there.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Cathy on February 03, 2016, 02:14:18 PM
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).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on February 04, 2016, 07:41:21 AM
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.

Welcome to Cathy's posts.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Chaplin on March 22, 2016, 10:32:25 PM
Mortgage: from the french/latin words "mort" (dead) and "gage" (wager), so "deathwager."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on March 25, 2016, 10:04:55 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 25, 2016, 01:03:56 PM
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.

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:
  • 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
Those are the weird ones.
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Paul | pdgessler on March 25, 2016, 01:39:09 PM
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?

They were wrong:
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 25, 2016, 02:16:25 PM
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.

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:
  • 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
Those are the weird ones.
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?

They were wrong.  "It's" does not in any context indicate possession.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 25, 2016, 02:20:48 PM
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.

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:
  • 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
Those are the weird ones.
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?

They were wrong.  "It's" does not in any context indicate possession.
God, what a relief!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: bobechs on March 29, 2016, 05:55:47 PM
God, what a relief!


Weren't they working for God?  Why give Him any credit?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on April 06, 2016, 11:43:21 AM
Today's annoyance

"Could of"

Really?  HAVE!  "Could have"

Oh and that reminds me of another

"I half to go to the store."  Shaking my head.  How do these people get along in the world? I do not know.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on April 06, 2016, 11:47:32 AM
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).

Cathy, the rest of humanity will continue to frustrate you for the rest of your existence.  We'll never catch up, not one of us.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jooles on April 06, 2016, 11:55:36 AM
So is supposed to be used in something like, "The grass is tall, so it will be mowed." The use expanded to "The grass is tall. So, it will be mowed."

Now, so is commonly used at the beginning of a sentence to mean "as a result" as it was traditionally used, but also with the same meaning as "uh," as an initial attention-getter. For example, "So, do you want to go get some lunch?"

It is also used sometimes in a discussion to "hold the floor," or keep one's side of the conversation going by making some noise between sentences. This is particularly common in public interviews.

So is sometimes used in the beginning of a sentence to connect the sentence with the previous sentence or paragraph, as a discourse marker. It may imply that the content of the sentence is there because of the previous idea, or it may just be there to keep up the rhythmic flow of the text.

So, I find it annoying, too.

 
It's partly a regional usage: Seamus Heaney in the foreword to his translation of Beowulf says


Conventional renderings of hwæt, the first word of the poem, tend towards the archaic literary, with ‘lo’, ‘hark’, ‘behold’, ‘attend’ and – more colloquially – ‘listen’ being some of the solutions offered previously. But in Hiberno-English Scullion-speak, the particle ‘so’ came naturally to the rescue, because in that idiom ‘so’ operates as an expression that obliterates all previous discourse and narrative, and at the same time functions as an exclamation calling for immediate attention. So, ‘so’ it was:

So. The Spear-Danes in days gone by and the kings who ruled them had courage and greatness. We have heard of those princes’ heroic campaigns.

(full text here; http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/beowulf/introbeowulf.htm)
 
Both responses from - http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43273/sentences-beginning-with-so
 

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 06, 2016, 01:48:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: forummm on April 06, 2016, 02:44:54 PM
People who say things like "All sheep are not white" when what they really mean is "not all sheep are white.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 06, 2016, 02:49:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 06, 2016, 02:52:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 06, 2016, 04:42:23 PM
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.

Sure I do, but I don't use "So," for the reasons given above. (I'll leave it at that, although I'm tempted to rant here.)

As an attention-getting word, I really like the old-fashioned "Say". My grandma used to use it and I always liked it.


Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 06, 2016, 04:44:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: forummm on April 06, 2016, 04:45:17 PM
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.

Funny.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: forummm on April 06, 2016, 04:45:47 PM
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.
Just people don't realize the placement affects the meaning.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on April 10, 2016, 02:43:17 AM
...
I'm confused - your username is TheBuddha, but your avatar is Bobby Hill.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Gerard on April 10, 2016, 06:55:39 AM
As somebody who posts in this thread, I think I can get away with this link as self-deprecation:

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-constantly-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 11, 2016, 01:11:12 AM
...
I'm confused - your username is TheBuddha, but your avatar is Bobby Hill.

Congratulations, you have achieved satori.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on March 17, 2017, 04:04:31 PM
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.)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 17, 2017, 08:31:12 PM
Necropost. I love it!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on March 18, 2017, 07:40:52 AM
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.)

I can see that it's having quite an affect on you.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 18, 2017, 08:08:21 AM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on March 18, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 18, 2017, 10:02:57 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Jet711 on March 18, 2017, 10:18:02 AM
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?!?!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on March 18, 2017, 10:58:31 AM
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 Grammar Nazi's.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Riff on March 18, 2017, 01:58:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on March 18, 2017, 03:00:27 PM
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?

Rising inflection. It's from Australia.

Oh, you North Americans - did you never watch Neighbours or Home and Away when you were young? My mum and grandma were addicts.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 19, 2017, 07:24:28 AM
Oooh, I like this necro-revival.

Canadians are often guilty of rising inflection.  It goes well with eh.

Things I have seen on the forums:

reign in when they mean rein in, re curbing spending.  I guess they need a curb bit on their wallets?

Walla or Wallah - it is voila, from voi la, look at that.  If you are going to borrow from a foreign language, please keep the spelling.

I can live with typos, I know phones and tablets do a lot of auto-correct that can be a pain for the typist.  But the choice of words?  Are we Alice and the March Hare?  Hum, it is March. . . . .
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on March 19, 2017, 08:01:46 AM
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 Grammar Nazi's Nazis.

Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police.  ;)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 19, 2017, 08:08:31 AM
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:

{{{{{,}}}}}
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 19, 2017, 12:40:07 PM
Lose Loose.  enough said.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 19, 2017, 12:54:38 PM
Uninterested and disinterested.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 19, 2017, 01:52:20 PM
Shelivesthedream

Look at all the posts!  Obviously we have missed this thread.  May it live long and prosper.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: craiglepaige on March 19, 2017, 03:33:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on March 19, 2017, 03:36:18 PM
Your cursing is excellent, Craig.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on March 19, 2017, 04:34:32 PM
Shelivesthedream

Look at all the posts!  Obviously we have missed this thread.  May it live long and prosper.

Always good to know one is not alone. :)

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on March 19, 2017, 06:21:45 PM
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.

I think you would say "grammatical errors" or "errors in grammar", but not "grammar errors".

I would put a comma between "correct information" and "you dick".

Your English is considerably better than my... every other language.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: craiglepaige on March 19, 2017, 07:53:00 PM
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.

I think you would say "grammatical errors" or "errors in grammar", but not "grammar errors".

I would put a comma between "correct information" and "you dick".

Your English is considerably better than my... every other language.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: sol on March 19, 2017, 08:09:33 PM
About 75% of this thread is contained in this song:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O14k6sT8Fp8

It's not his best work, but it is the one most relevant to the discussion at hand.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on March 20, 2017, 10:54:56 AM
One good turn deserves another:

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: jordanread on March 20, 2017, 11:12:23 AM
One good turn deserves another:

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc

I had never seen the video for that song. I like it.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: teen persuasion on March 21, 2017, 08:56:36 PM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 22, 2017, 08:25:07 AM
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)

Yes. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: calimom on March 22, 2017, 11:13:55 PM
Not enough Grammar Nazi's Nazis.

Don't forget the Grammar Nazis' henchmen, the Punctuation Police.  ;)

GuessTypo?

Or just the local branch of the 'Postrophe Patrol?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 24, 2017, 09:02:15 PM
Might've been mentioned before, but: inoperative vs inoperable.

Inoperative means not working. Inoperable means can't be successfully surgically operated on.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on March 25, 2017, 02:39:38 AM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: johnny847 on March 25, 2017, 10:13:01 AM
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on March 25, 2017, 10:20:40 AM
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)

Is there some group dedicated to bringing the correct meanings of words back?  Internet dictionaries are responsible for the degradation of the English language and some of the differences in words bring such a subtlety that their use can make reading literature or poetry or music so much more enjoyable. 

I really want to make the meaning of "literal" mean "literal" and not the literal opposite of literal! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: grantmeaname on March 26, 2017, 03:28:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Philociraptor on March 27, 2017, 03:39:18 PM
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.

Hell, the picture even says "not able to be used" and "not working" under definition 2 of inoperable.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on March 28, 2017, 05:50:23 AM
never understand this kind of people...

there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"

I see. And you are, at all times, focused on the most important thing in life?

I never understand this kind of people. Taking the time to hit reply on a forum, only to leave a dismissive comment insulting all prior posters of the thread.

There are more important things in life than needing to assert one's superiority over complete strangers on the internet.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on March 28, 2017, 09:20:03 AM
never understand this kind of people...

there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"

Begging your pardon, there is very little more important than proper grammar.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on March 28, 2017, 09:53:03 AM
never understand this kind of people...

there are more important things in life than "grammatical errors"

Like capitalization of the first word in a sentence?

:D
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Rimu05 on March 28, 2017, 02:36:54 PM
I learn I've become less of a grammar Nazi with may language learning. There are certain mistakes I don't think native speakers should be making, but I also realize as a Swahili speaker that my grammar in literary form is horrendous simply because I rarely write or read in it and mainly speak it.

I don't pause to think of grammar rules yet when I write, I have to sit there and stew about very simple things.

On that note, find myself "learning" Swahili all over again because I've never stopped to think why I use cha, la or ya. It just comes to me naturally.

I attend a French meet up monthly and there's a lady who's a native Spanish speaker and since I'm learning Spanish from the bottom, we were discussing the Spanish alphabet and she could barely recite it.

My English simply happens to overpower every language because it is not only one of the official languages of Kenya but it's been beaten into me through my love for reading.


On this topic though, it does annoy me when I see people not capitalize I.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Tay_CPA on March 28, 2017, 02:45:41 PM
"Sneak peak" drives me crazy!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on March 28, 2017, 02:52:08 PM
"Sneak peak" drives me crazy!

You don't like those seamounts that suddenly break the surface?
(http://kvoa.images.worldnow.com/images/6831635_G.jpg)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Tay_CPA on March 28, 2017, 04:43:57 PM
"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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: daverobev on March 28, 2017, 04:53:06 PM
"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!

You've peaked my interest!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MMMaybe on April 04, 2017, 02:56:07 PM
Is this someone from this thread?! He is a self-styled grammar vigilante...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39459831
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheFixer on April 07, 2017, 07:52:08 AM
Peek.
Peak.
Pique.

Language is both a virus and a weapon. Please use it responsibly.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 07, 2017, 08:45:42 AM
Peek.
Peak.
Pique.

Language is both a virus and a weapon. Please use it responsibly.

Rain
Rein
Reign

They're
There
Their
(although, when typing, I often make errors that I never used to make when writing these)

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? 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MandalayVA on April 07, 2017, 09:13:38 AM

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?

One ton = unit of weight

Won ton = tasty snack

Maybe you're hungry.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 07, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
Funny, BlueHouse. I struggle with "grateful". I always want to spell it "greatful" because being grateful does not "grate", it is "great". I know how to spell it, but my brain wants to do it differently, every time.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dave1442397 on April 07, 2017, 11:06:31 AM
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?

Our daughter used to call wonton soup "one time soup" when she was little. I thought, yeah, that works :)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: FIPurpose on April 15, 2017, 08:34:52 AM
We have too many people complaining about "word usage" in this thread. Let's get back to complaining about grammar.

http://m.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Cut_it_out_Grammar_usage_syntax_are_not_the_same__46273.aspx (http://m.ragan.com/Main/Articles/Cut_it_out_Grammar_usage_syntax_are_not_the_same__46273.aspx)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on April 15, 2017, 09:08:51 AM
https://www.etsy.com/listing/221977595/there-their-theyre-t-s-shirt-grammar
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: evaporator on April 15, 2017, 08:42:38 PM
This is the worse thread ever!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 16, 2017, 01:58:37 AM
This is the worse thread ever!

This reminded me of how often I hear people say "If worse comes to worse".
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 17, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
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 .
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 17, 2017, 07:42:17 PM
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 .
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!

That was supposed to be "handbasket", but that autofill is too funny, so stet.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on April 17, 2017, 08:44:44 PM
I like "tough road to hoe". Yes, a road would be very hard to hoe. And why would you want to?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: deborah on April 17, 2017, 09:16:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on April 18, 2017, 04:28:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dave1442397 on April 18, 2017, 05:34:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on April 18, 2017, 09:09:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 18, 2017, 09:18:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 19, 2017, 09:10:07 AM
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.
Howdy Neighbor,  I used to live on Bentwood Drive.  (A few blocks away from Hunt Tract). 

I also love it it when people are in udder disbelief.  ha!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dave1442397 on April 19, 2017, 11:42:36 AM
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.

That's a different issue, though. I'm talking about people who just the wrong word, not those who mispronounce the correct word.

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 also remember Harlan Ellison talking about mispronouncing a word on a TV interview. He knew how to spell it, knew what it meant, but had never heard it used in conversation.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dave1442397 on April 19, 2017, 11:45:09 AM

Howdy Neighbor,  I used to live on Bentwood Drive.  (A few blocks away from Hunt Tract). 


Hi, that's close to me :) I cycle up and down Covered Bridge Road all the time.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 19, 2017, 02:14:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 19, 2017, 02:20:01 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 19, 2017, 05:24:43 PM
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?
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.

"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 20, 2017, 12:22:34 AM

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.

Ha - I've done it too, been so used to my imagined pronunciation that the correct one sounds weird.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 20, 2017, 02:32:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 20, 2017, 05:40:19 AM
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?
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.

"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
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.
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)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: pbkmaine on April 20, 2017, 06:05:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Johnez on April 20, 2017, 06:10:17 AM
I just learned what an Oxford comma is thanks to this thread.  After struggling so often with the thing myself, I find it hilarious how this little comma ended up being the subject of million dollar lawsuits.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 20, 2017, 07:09:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 20, 2017, 07:21:39 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 20, 2017, 08:02:26 AM
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?
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.

"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
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.
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 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.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 20, 2017, 09:22:13 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 20, 2017, 10:19:45 AM
^And most of Canada basically has one accent thanks to the CBC.  Newfoundland only joined in 1949, which is why they have the only really distinct Canadian accent.


Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Rimu05 on April 21, 2017, 08:03:28 AM
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on April 21, 2017, 08:19:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 21, 2017, 08:21:06 AM
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.


I am embarrassed to admit how old I was before I realized that La Jolla was actually what I'd always assumed was spelled "La Hoya."
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 21, 2017, 05:18:23 PM
I grew up in Quebec so when I see French spelling I think French pronunciation.  Elsewhere, I have no idea how to say things with French spelling.  Des Moines?  And last names, that is a real mine filed when French has been anglicized, so many possibilities.

Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dee on April 21, 2017, 05:49:22 PM
I recently misheard "parting of the ways" as "permanent malaise". (I know this was a pronounciation/hearing issue and has nothing to do with grammar but I found it amusing.)
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 22, 2017, 05:37:50 AM
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?
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.

"A tough road to hoe" is correct in urban centers. The old saying evolved; strangely it conveys the same meaning.
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.
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 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.

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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on April 23, 2017, 03:43:53 AM
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...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 23, 2017, 05:41:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Kris on April 23, 2017, 08:24:31 AM
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,,,
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 23, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
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,,,
,,,oops,,, Sorry,
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on April 23, 2017, 03:19:45 PM
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,,,


FYI if you ever see multiple parentheses like that))) that's how Russians make a smiley face :) It's weird, but that's what they do))
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 24, 2017, 10:01:51 AM
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.
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.
:) 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 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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 24, 2017, 12:21:38 PM
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.
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.
:) 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 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'm sorry, I just really cannot accept this. 

"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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 24, 2017, 02:46:06 PM
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.
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.
:) 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 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'm sorry, I just really cannot accept this. 

"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.
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
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 27, 2017, 11:55:05 AM

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
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. 

EDIT:  Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police! 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on April 27, 2017, 11:57:26 AM
I think I need to start a "Quote] Nazi" thread...
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on April 27, 2017, 12:44:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on April 27, 2017, 01:16:34 PM
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.

Good. My work here is finished.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 28, 2017, 08:40:49 AM
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. 

EDIT:  Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police!
[/quote]
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.

I imagine there's a lot of regional eggcorns, it seems it would be very much based on local dialects. Since we don't locally have oak trees producing acorns, this term was new. I have to spend time think of eggcorns I use without realizing it. The closest I have is when I was four I regularly said "barnure" instead of manure, we had a barn full of cows and that seemed to make sense. Kids are delightful sources for words.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: solon on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
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. 

EDIT:  Fixed Quote indents after being caught by the Quote Police!
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.

I imagine there's a lot of regional eggcorns, it seems it would be very much based on local dialects. Since we don't locally have oak trees producing acorns, this term was new. I have to spend time think of eggcorns I use without realizing it. The closest I have is when I was four I regularly said "barnure" instead of manure, we had a barn full of cows and that seemed to make sense. Kids are delightful sources for words.
[/quote]

Sigh.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: MDM on April 28, 2017, 10:05:52 AM
A grammarian may work from sun to sun but a quotist's work is never done.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on April 28, 2017, 11:36:23 AM
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!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on April 30, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
Guilty.

As.

Charged.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on April 30, 2017, 11:03:38 AM
Guilty.

As.

Charged.

But...

Why?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: deborah on April 30, 2017, 03:06:33 PM
A paragraph embodies a thought.

People sometimes just want to use up space.

White space is good.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: BlueHouse on May 01, 2017, 11:08:37 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on May 05, 2017, 11:54:52 AM
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 mixed up because it means the same as "A tough road to travel"..
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on May 05, 2017, 11:55:52 AM
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.

You are a poet.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on September 23, 2017, 12:35:20 AM
I've noticed people starting to drop the "y" from "shitty". So instead of "He did a shitty job" they'll say "He did a shit job". It sounds awkward to me; I think the "y" form is smoother and helps transition into the next syllable.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on September 25, 2017, 05:35:21 AM
In a newer thread*, the OP's greeting is "Hello wizened stash community"

*https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/resigning-from-my-job-to-travel-face-punch-or-will-i-be-okay/msg1706851/?topicseen#new

wiz·ened
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"
Though 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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: shelivesthedream on September 25, 2017, 06:03:35 AM
What do they think they're saying?!
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 25, 2017, 06:42:26 AM
What do they think they're saying?!

I just went and asked, it was odd.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Dicey on September 25, 2017, 09:51:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 25, 2017, 05:44:57 PM
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.

I'm still the last poster, maybe OP has already taken off on the journey?
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GreenSheep on September 26, 2017, 12:34:48 PM
I used to be very judgmental about grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc., and for the most part I still am, but I did tone it down a bit after meeting someone who is even more of a Grammar Nazi than I am. She was in her 80s and had spent her life teaching English. She berated me for using the word "okay," saying that young people these days are too lazy to use TWO words: "all right." My response was that language changes over time, and we're not all speaking like Shakespeare anymore. (I did look up the history of "okay," which is pretty interesting.)

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." I don't have a perfect answer, but some of the comments above have addressed this to some extent.

I also catch myself using "hopefully" in the wrong (common) way, and I hate that I do that! Unfortunately I learned the wrong use first, and I haven't found a good substitute. "With any luck" is only one syllable longer but seems more clunky.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on September 26, 2017, 11:00:09 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: mlejw6 on September 27, 2017, 07:59:49 AM
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.

My real pet peeve these days is when people write "loose" instead of "lose". At least you're and your sound the same in your head as you read it, but coming upon loose when someone is talking about losing something is like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE IT PEOPLE???
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 27, 2017, 03:38:26 PM
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!


I plead guilty. Probably crosses over from business writing. Short and to the point, with lots of white space between each point so NOTHING gets missed in the "wall-of-text" syndrome.

Plus, on an email, a single long sentence looks like a short paragraph. At least when you're looking at an email in the preview pane (which everyone does).




On a side note, and the reason why I clicked into this thread...
I am studying for the GMAT, which has a number of grammar questions sprinkled in the verbal section. This section is so painful. I've managed to raise my accuracy on practice tests from 10% (worse than guessing) to 60%.

Damn grammar Nazis. :(
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 13, 2017, 04:37:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: GreenSheep on October 13, 2017, 06:32:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: TheBuddha on October 13, 2017, 11:14:47 PM

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.

Oh I agree. But then again, to non-mustachians we probably come across like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHCVyllnck).
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: slackmax on October 16, 2017, 05:52:33 AM
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.


Just turn on NPR on the radio and listen to any interview. The answer to any question always starts with the word 'so'.  I can't stand it.  But the good news is that they don't end the answer with the word 'right'.
Title: Re: Grammar nazi
Post by: Goldielocks on October 16, 2017, 03:42:17 PM
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.

You are right!  They should end it properly, which is  ... "So, [....]  'eh?"