Etiquette Hell

A Civil World. Off-topic discussions on a variety of topics. Guests, register for forum membership to see all the boards. => Time For a Coffee Break! => Topic started by: starry diadem on July 18, 2012, 02:22:29 AM

Title: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 18, 2012, 02:22:29 AM
Okay, I know that in the great scheme of things these don't really matter and they aren't real impediments to understanding, but there are a couple of grammar misuses that always have me wincing when I read them.  I don't care about split infinitives (a fairly late invention by 18th century grammarians trying to make English more like Latin) and the confusion between affect/effect merely has me sighing.  But there are a couple that - probably irrationally, given I can cope with other 'offences' - have me sucking in a sharp breath and dealing with a momentary flare of irritation. 


My two least favourites are:

 -    'per say', when that's just the way you pronounce the Latin tag, per se.   I've seen that on this site every day this week and it never fails to have me wanting to ask the OP why on earth they don't stick to English and avoid the problem of dead languages all together.

 -  the confusion between 'lay' and 'lie'.   Every time I read "I was laying there..."  I want to know what it was the poster was laying.  Eggs?  To lay, as a verb, is transitive and requires a direct object.  It shouldn't be "Come and lay down beside me"  but  "Come and lie down..."  It makes me twitch.  Every time. 


I get that this is my inner pedant having a conniption fit and I tell Pedant Annie to be quiet and get back inside her box.   I usually succeed and all is serene again until the next time.

What are the grammar misuses that press your buttons and have you wincing?  Or am I alone in my pedantry?!

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Erich L-ster on July 18, 2012, 02:30:29 AM
I'm saddened to see that we're losing the word "lose". Who loosed these losers upon the world who don't know the difference between "loose" and "lose"?

Forget about your you're their they're to too two.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 18, 2012, 02:39:27 AM
I feel your pain... And yes, I know, rearguard action and the rest, and sometimes it's not grammar so much as spelling. Affect/effect does annoy me, and my reaction to the lay/lie thing is usually, yes, to say 'you're not a chicken!'

Every time I see 'ect' for 'etc' I think of Molesworth.

Discreet/discrete puts my hackles up. Not the same word. And prostrate/prostate, although when people get that one wrong, it usually makes me giggle.

The blood pressure rising one, though, I think, is 'them' for 'those'. I was actually guilty of a major etiquette fail once while waiting to collect a child from school; somebody with an apple tree in their garden had set out a table with bags of apples for sale to benefit the PTA, and a parent beside me commented "ooh, I think I'll have some of them apples." At the time I was fighting this battle with one of my children, and my response was both loud and automatic: "THOSE apples!"

Loud, automatic and mortifying - and there's no way to apologise without making it worse.

Oh yes, and on a 'light blue touchpaper and run away' note, I give you...

Apostrophes!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: AylaM on July 18, 2012, 02:49:18 AM
I am not great with grammar.  I failed most of my tests in school when it came to identifying things like adverbs, adjectives, and sentence structure.  What I do know of grammar I tend to have just picked up from reading.  I can look at something and say "It does not look right" and adjust accordingly.  However I never know if my grammar is quite right, but I think I have the basics down.  But because I am so bad with knowing what is technically wrong/right, I am rather lenient with grammar.  That leniency is reinforced by the fact that I think faster than I can type.  And by the fact that I can't type properly.  So, again, I give a lot of leeway.

But I do have my quirks.

I love the Oxford comma.

I do not like the common mistakes mentioned above: they're/their/there, to/too/two.

I can't stand the use of "they" for a gender-ambiguous person. (E.g. The person went into the store and they bought a drink).  Apparently the person with no gender can now replicate himself (or herself).  ;D

Capitalization.  It does not need to be perfect, but an attempt must be made.


ETA:

Apostrophes!

YES! POD! PODPODPODPODPOD! (...so much for good grammar.  I'm sure spaces aren't necessary.  Merely a courtesy, right?)




Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redsoil on July 18, 2012, 04:05:04 AM
Not actually grammar, but the use of the word "break" for "brake".

One may accidently break a vase.  One uses the brakes in one's car to reduce speed (abruptly or otherwise).

Every time I see the word used incorrectly (often here on E-hell) my teeth itch!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 18, 2012, 06:34:03 AM
The one I forgot: I and me.

'Me and KayMarie are distressed by aberrant apostrophes.'

No, we aren't. 'KayMarie and I are distressed by aberrant apostrophes.'

It's not difficult: use the same one you would use if there were (subjunctive!) only you - so 'I am distressed', not 'me am distressed'. And you yourself always come last. That's easy to remember - this is an etiquette board, and etiquette says I should let KayMarie go first, right?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Pioneer on July 18, 2012, 06:43:55 AM
Less versus Fewer.  (I know, a capitalization violation. >:D)

I find it especially cringe-worthy when I see it by vendors as "20 items or less."  Items in a cart is quantifiable, not a mass.  Use fewer.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: gmama on July 18, 2012, 07:00:16 AM
Should have, would have, could have.  NOT should of, would of, could of.  I get stabby when I see the latter.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on July 18, 2012, 07:16:06 AM
I agree with all the previous posts and will add the following, which I think also fall into generation-speak:

"Why are you hating on her?"

"I want to hit that" (as in "I want to boink her")

I also hate that I feel bad about this because I don't want to be laughed at as an old fogey (which I'm technically too young to be) but the poor grammar of the first (along with the previous examples) contributes to the debasement of our language and the misogyny of the second riles me up.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on July 18, 2012, 07:17:48 AM
Less versus Fewer.  (I know, a capitalization violation. >:D)

I find it especially cringe-worthy when I see it by vendors as "20 items or less."  Items in a cart is quantifiable, not a mass.  Use fewer.


http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-commonly-corrected-grammar-errors-that-arent-mistakes/ item #5 (cracked.com has some Adult wording.. and imagery that had the perpetual kid in me snickering.)

And from that article a link to http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/10-items-or-less-is-just-fine/
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 18, 2012, 07:22:33 AM
One I see all the time on this site:

"To no end" DOES NOT MEAN "no end." The former means "pointlessly." The latter means "to the Nth degree."

"People popping their gum bother me no end." That is correct.

I am pretty prescriptive in my grammar. I don't like using verbs as nouns, and I use the word when others would use a phrase. I buy things; I don't purchase them. Those things in my window are curtains, not drapes. I don't have a look; I look.

And for the love of God, there's no such thing as a chester drawer.

Homonym abuse is a big one for me too. A king reigns. That thing you steer a horse with, that's reins. What's coming out of the sky, that's rain.

For awhile, I'm not sure why, when referring to a king-making ceremony, the trend was to refer to the process as "coronating." Crowning, people, crowning! The ceremony is a coronation. You don't get to form a verb from that.

And there's another one that's gotten me of late: people using "foundational" when I think they mean "fundamental."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redsoil on July 18, 2012, 07:32:40 AM
"Coronating"?  Really?

*faints*
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on July 18, 2012, 07:43:26 AM
Quote
For awhile, I'm not sure why, when referring to a king-making ceremony, the trend was to refer to the process as "coronating." Crowning, people, crowning! The ceremony is a coronation. You don't get to form a verb from that.

Back in my reenactment days there was someone who would refer to a coronet as a "cornet".  Since he was a person who generally speaking was generally speaking (not unlike myself) I never had the opportunity to correct him, but as I type this I have the feeling that he knew he was using the incorrect word and was doing so deliberately to insult the intelligence of his audience.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: guihong on July 18, 2012, 07:50:19 AM
"Like", meaning "said"  >:( >:( "So she's like blah blah blah, and I'm like blah blah blah".   

"Basically".  "So basically I was like, blah blah blah".

Calvary was where Jesus was crucified.  Cavalry means soldiers on horseback.   But even I mess that up.

"Axs" for "ask".  I don't know if that's a kind of dialect, and it's controversial here because it seems mostly connected to race.  It still makes me cringe, though.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 18, 2012, 08:05:55 AM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?


And for the love of God, there's no such thing as a chester drawer.


Drawers? You get drawers? You lucky... person. My local Freegle regularly has people asking for a chest of draws.

Also off Freegle, the man who had to come back to  the list and post his request a second time. He had asked for a three piece suit and was bewildered when a member offered him clothing, rather than furniture.

Houses for sale: that bathroom opening off the main bedroom? En suite, not on suite.

Oh yes, and I'm in favour of the death penalty for people who misuse 'literally', as in 'I was literally dead with exhaustion...'

I sound like a right curmudgeonly old bat here, don't I?





You're supposed to say No.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on July 18, 2012, 08:07:11 AM
Quote
"Axs" for "ask".  I don't know if that's a kind of dialect, and it's controversial here because it seems mostly connected to race.  It still makes me cringe, though.

That one still makes me cringe although I don't hear it frequently anymore.

Three companies ago there was someone in the office who did this.  To compound the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue she would also say "pacific" for "specific."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on July 18, 2012, 08:36:11 AM
I pass three produce stands on the way to work.  Every single one of them is offering beefstake tomatoes.   >:(
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Adelaide on July 18, 2012, 08:41:30 AM
I really don't know enough about grammar/spelling/pronunciation to be that picky, but I think I was made that way by my English teachers. Some of my pet peeves include the following:

1. One of my friends has a habit of "punctuating" her texts with the word lol.  "We're going to the mall lol I saw that hot guy lol you should come next time lol". Another friend will use ellipses like they're going out of style, and she always posts them in big blocks of text. "I just think....maybe if I tried harder....but I'm not sure...." It drives me up the wall. I realize that I'm not the punctuation queen, but "lol" and "......" don't count as punctuation. I picture my first friend hyperventilating from "laughing" and my second friend having to draw deep, sucking breaths between each "sentence".

2. I cannot ever remember the difference between affect and effect. I go out of my way to avoid using those words. Same situation with the word "whom". >.<

3. It's/its  they're/their/there two/too/to

4. "fixin' " is not a thing. As in, "I'm fixin' ta go to the grocery store." I say it too. I am from the South. I admit defeat.

I pass three produce stands on the way to work.  Every single one of them is offering beefstake tomatoes.   >:(

I find that hilarious, only because I don't have to see it everyday. ;D I do feel your pain though. There's a large sign at a doughnut shop here that reads

"Coffee's
Cafe's Macchiato's
Latte's
Cappuccino's"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: rose red on July 18, 2012, 08:53:44 AM
The one I forgot: I and me.

'Me and KayMarie are distressed by aberrant apostrophes.'

I hate this too.  I see it so much lately that I even questioned myself and wondered if grammar changed while my back was turned.

This isn't grammar, but spelling.  On book forums, so many people type "heroin" instead of "heroine."  That one little "e" makes a world of difference so please spell correctly!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on July 18, 2012, 09:03:36 AM
I also avoid use of affect & effect - years of study and I still cannot get comfortable using either word.

I am guilty of using fixin and yonder.  I am fixin to go out yonder and pick up dinner.  I explained yonder to a Yankee one time, "yonder is wherever I am pointing.  It is not a specific place it is just over there."  Poor man thought it was a city in Texas. 

I cannot stand the misuse of pitcher & picture.  You pour from a pitcher and show me a picture of your grandbaby.  I worked for a printing company for years, finally asked one of the workers to use the word photo, agghh.

Also, I live in the Permian Basin.    my head splits open when I see Permain   that's just bad spelling
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: JennJenn68 on July 18, 2012, 09:13:34 AM
Many of those already posted are "hot buttons" with me, so I'll refrain from repetition.  So far, however, nobody has mentioned the one misspelling that drives me absolutely bonkers--"alot".  Folks, those are two separate words.  "A".  "Lot".  Meaning "a great many".  If you want to make it one word, better add the additional "L" and change the definition of the word to match "allot".  ::)

I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".  Uh, yes, they are.  Any employer attempting to weed through a pile of several hundred applications will immediately drop a resume with misspellings and obvious grammar errors right into the trash.  Assuming one manages to get hired, sending off emails full of spelling and grammar errors will negatively impact how one's employer is perceived.  So, yeah, spelling and grammar matter.

Thus endeth today's sermon from Mrs. English... ;D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on July 18, 2012, 09:14:27 AM
Quote
"Axs" for "ask".  I don't know if that's a kind of dialect, and it's controversial here because it seems mostly connected to race.  It still makes me cringe, though.

That one still makes me cringe although I don't hear it frequently anymore.

Three companies ago there was someone in the office who did this.  To compound the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue she would also say "pacific" for "specific."

I have a reprint of a little etiquette manual from the very late 19th century and it includes a section on grammar. Yes, it does say that "axs" should be avoided.

I hate the hating/loving construction: "I am loving this dress", for example. The present continuous tense conveys the idea of something that is happening now but will most likely in the future. "I work with computers" is different from "I am working with computers". This idea is very different from the concept of love, which does seem to have an element of permanence to it.

From a social point of view, this construction may be an interesting symptom of a consumerist, trend driven society, where we all know that the "it thing" of the moment will only last a moment and that we will all be loving something else next week.

I could, however, support the use of this construction for flavour of the month relationships: "Mary is loving Bob this week".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on July 18, 2012, 09:17:56 AM
Many of those already posted are "hot buttons" with me, so I'll refrain from repetition.  So far, however, nobody has mentioned the one misspelling that drives me absolutely bonkers--"alot".  Folks, those are two separate words.  "A".  "Lot".  Meaning "a great many".  If you want to make it one word, better add the additional "L" and change the definition of the word to match "allot".  ::)

I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".  Uh, yes, they are.  Any employer attempting to weed through a pile of several hundred applications will immediately drop a resume with misspellings and obvious grammar errors right into the trash.  Assuming one manages to get hired, sending off emails full of spelling and grammar errors will negatively impact how one's employer is perceived.  So, yeah, spelling and grammar matter.

Thus endeth today's sermon from Mrs. English... ;D

How about alright?

I know some people defend its use as a word, meaning "acceptable". I am not speaking of this use. I am speaking of the downright wrong use "I checked the multiple question answers and they were alright". No, they were all right (aka, 100% correct).
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 18, 2012, 09:19:16 AM
Don't get me started on everyday idiocies.

However, I can see how some of these things happen.

'Per say' for 'per se' could be due to an over-zealous spell checker.  I've had times when the ding dangety thing will NOT let me write something I know is correct.

Using 'them' instead of 'those' may be intended to be humorous.  We all know the phrase, 'How do you like them apples?' as a jocular put-down.  It can also be used as an intensive as, 'I sure would like to get me some of them there apples!'.  Everyone knows it's not correct but will use it from time to time.





Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Sedorna on July 18, 2012, 09:21:10 AM
Many of those already posted are "hot buttons" with me, so I'll refrain from repetition.  So far, however, nobody has mentioned the one misspelling that drives me absolutely bonkers--"alot".  Folks, those are two separate words.  "A".  "Lot".  Meaning "a great many".  If you want to make it one word, better add the additional "L" and change the definition of the word to match "allot".  ::)

That reminds me of this.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on July 18, 2012, 09:39:12 AM
Freshman year of college, English teacher writes:

A                            lot               on the blackboard

Says, "if I see it wrong you will write 100 sentences using it correctly"   

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: takeheart on July 18, 2012, 10:10:48 AM
This isn't so much a grammar quirk, but more of a punctuation issue. It drives me crazy when people use "..." between sentences rather than correct punctuation. I know a lady who works in a professional office and this is an example of her email: "Hey takeheart... Sorry it took so long... looking at everything that we have going on-I don't think that we will be able to make any at this time... We do appreciate the offer... Thank u"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on July 18, 2012, 10:32:14 AM
Many of those already posted are "hot buttons" with me, so I'll refrain from repetition.  So far, however, nobody has mentioned the one misspelling that drives me absolutely bonkers--"alot".  Folks, those are two separate words.  "A".  "Lot".  Meaning "a great many".  If you want to make it one word, better add the additional "L" and change the definition of the word to match "allot".  ::)

That reminds me of this.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

I love that entry! It's hilarious!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 18, 2012, 11:28:49 AM
Many of those already posted are "hot buttons" with me, so I'll refrain from repetition.  So far, however, nobody has mentioned the one misspelling that drives me absolutely bonkers--"alot".  Folks, those are two separate words.  "A".  "Lot".  Meaning "a great many".  If you want to make it one word, better add the additional "L" and change the definition of the word to match "allot".  ::)

I think I love you.

I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".  Uh, yes, they are.  Any employer attempting to weed through a pile of several hundred applications will immediately drop a resume with misspellings and obvious grammar errors right into the trash.  Assuming one manages to get hired, sending off emails full of spelling and grammar errors will negatively impact how one's employer is perceived.  So, yeah, spelling and grammar matter.

Thus endeth today's sermon from Mrs. English... ;D

I do! I love you!

I worked for the company - it was construction - in which the Sales Director would pass advertisement copy with absolutely egregious errors in it, and say 'it doesn't matter; most people don't notice.' I could not get him to grasp that the people who didn't notice wouldn't notice whether the ad was right or wrong, but the people who did notice would judge the company and would think that if we didn't care about the detail in our own promotional materials, we wouldn't care about the details in, oooh, say, their planning applications or building plans or invoices. And then they would go to a competitor who might not be as good a builder, but who knew how to spell 'estimate'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: silvercelt on July 18, 2012, 11:40:12 AM
Not actually grammar, but the use of the word "break" for "brake".

One may accidently break a vase.  One uses the brakes in one's car to reduce speed (abruptly or otherwise).

Every time I see the word used incorrectly (often here on E-hell) my teeth itch!

My peeve is bear/bare.

I once got an email from an employee asking me to "bare" with her as she worked through a computer issue.  She really did not get it when I responded that I would be more than happy to be patient, but I wanted to keep my clothes on. :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Harriet on July 18, 2012, 11:45:02 AM
I can look at something and say "It does not look right" and adjust accordingly. 

This is how I do it too! My eyes stop at that point and go, "Something wrong there. What is it? Oh, now I see."

I'm really mad at the internet, because now "its" looks wrong. I've seen "it's" used incorrectly so many times, my eye sometimes fails to "catch" it now.

Most of my peeves have been mentioned so I'll bring up one that might just be a thing for me and not so much generally...

"Backup" used as a verb. Also applies to "setup." I think this comes from the tech world. Those are nouns, people! You should back up your work every night, so you have a backup if your hard drive fails.

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 18, 2012, 11:49:38 AM
There's a poster on here who overkills with hyphens. He would write something like "I need to back-up my data every night. My personal-computer, which I got at a bright-blue store, is a piece-of-work."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: CoffeeLover on July 18, 2012, 12:04:33 PM
Freshman year of college, English teacher writes:

A                            lot               on the blackboard

Says, "if I see it wrong you will write 100 sentences using it correctly"   




This!!!    My biggest pet peeve!   I get it all the time "I like it alot."    Bugs the crap out of me...I always want to write back, It's a lot.  Two words. 

I another thing is when I get a, what is supposed to be a professional, email and I get sentences like:  "hey i just wanted to let you now that i can c u tmrw at 9 kthx kimmie :P "  (text speak - I hate that)

Or:  "Hey I Just Wanted To Let You Know That I Can See You Tomorrow At 9.  Thanks Kimmie"  (every work is capitalized)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on July 18, 2012, 12:12:24 PM
"Coronating"?  Really?

*faints*

There was a newspaper near where I grew up that took this a step worse. This is an area where a lot of people have that "ar" for "or" accent--as in Highway "Farty." So...the local high school had a "carnation" ceremony for their homecoming queen. And no, they did not mean the flower.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: rose red on July 18, 2012, 12:27:35 PM
This isn't so much a grammar quirk, but more of a punctuation issue. It drives me crazy when people use "..." between sentences rather than correct punctuation. I know a lady who works in a professional office and this is an example of her email: "Hey takeheart... Sorry it took so long... looking at everything that we have going on-I don't think that we will be able to make any at this time... We do appreciate the offer... Thank u"

That makes my eyes strain and make me dizzy.  Doesn't proper punctuation take less time and keystrokes anyway?  I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Harriet on July 18, 2012, 12:33:13 PM
Wow. In the brief time since I posted, I received the following (separate) emails:

"Due to inclimate weather, tonight's event will be postponed."

"I appreciate your quick reply, in lieu of the very short notice."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: GreenHall on July 18, 2012, 12:43:45 PM
Regarding affect and effect; I had a college professor who was determined that we would leave his class knowing the difference/using both words correctly.  He was less impressed than I was at my 'ingenuity' of using change or result in any sentence where affect/effect would be used.  I know that part of my problem was KNOWing that he was looking at those specific words had me second guessing myself.

My college friend broke me of the habit of 'Anyways'.  Any time I used it, she replied 'Anyways is not a word.' I eventually got it through my thick head, and now whenever I hear 'Anyways' I have to bite my tongue not to quote her.

I have a coworker who says ax for ask and it makes my hair stand on end.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on July 18, 2012, 12:53:15 PM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on July 18, 2012, 12:58:09 PM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.

Tic.  >:D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 18, 2012, 01:14:18 PM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.

tic!

But it's fine in dialogue, if it's in keeping with the character.  That's the point at which my grammar head gets all explody - to create real and vibrant characters, I can't have them all speaking the Queen's English, with perfect grammar and received pronunciation.  They have to use slang and misuse the language.  The writing of characters and dialogue is where the artist and the pedant clash.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on July 18, 2012, 01:37:12 PM
I have a dear friend that ends every sentence with "and everythang"    (no i)

We we went down to the lake and everythang, and then we caught a mess of catfish and everythang.  So mom cleaned em and everythang.  Then dad came in and fried em up and everythang. 

A little of that goes a long way!


Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on July 18, 2012, 02:37:35 PM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.

My problem with the phrase isn't that it is low class but how uninterested and lazy it sounds and how it is used when someone knows that they shouldn't have said something but went ahead anyway*. I feel like answering "No, you don't just say. You either mean something or you don't. You either think it is relevant, entertaining or informative or you don't. And if you don't, keep your mouth shut."

*no s. Not anyways.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: FauxFoodist on July 18, 2012, 02:52:31 PM
Use of "their" referencing a singular noun -- e.g. "A teacher should put their stuff away here" rather than "A teacher should put his/her stuff here" (ironically, I just saw that on this thread).

Not using "were" for a conditional (I don't know if I am using the correct term) -- e.g. "If I was rich, I'd buy a big house," vs. "If I were rich, I'd buy a big house."

Using direct pronouns where indirect pronouns should be used -- it really gets me when the person speaking/writing is someone who has a degree related to writing, such as journalism or English.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: FauxFoodist on July 18, 2012, 02:55:04 PM
And you yourself always come last. That's easy to remember - this is an etiquette board, and etiquette says I should let KayMarie go first, right?

DF and I just had a "discussion" about that the other day.  He claims that it was taught to him in English class that the person speaking comes first.  I couldn't successfully explain to him that is not the case.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: GreenHall on July 18, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
And you yourself always come last. That's easy to remember - this is an etiquette board, and etiquette says I should let KayMarie go first, right?

DF and I just had a "discussion" about that the other day.  He claims that it was taught to him in English class that the person speaking comes first.  I couldn't successfully explain to him that is not the case.

I can't remember a citation at this point, but I remember reading this one on a list of 'Things that are not actually incorrect'.  I want to say that there was no grammatical rule for 'I' being last, but it was an etiquette based 'rule'. (And now I may have to go play with Google.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 18, 2012, 04:00:28 PM
Use of "their" referencing a singular noun -- e.g. "A teacher should put their stuff away here" rather than "A teacher should put his/her stuff here" (ironically, I just saw that on this thread).

There's nothing grammatically wrong with using the singular 'they', particularly when it's about a generic not a specific teacher (to take your example), and there's an indeterminate number of them.  Preferring 'his/her'  or 'his or her' is a matter of style, rather than grammar. 

Shakespeare used it.  That's good enough for me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: larkrise on July 18, 2012, 04:16:00 PM
The one I've noticed lately is 'sell' in place of sale. Signs on the weekend advertising "Yard Sell" or "we're having a sell to raise money for _______."

But don't get me started on the local dialect. Crick instead of creek, ruf instead of roof, mount'n instead of mountain... I'm sure I missed some. :P
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Twik on July 18, 2012, 04:26:08 PM
The word "paid" seems to have disappeared, to be replaced with "payed". I'm not sure if this is something I'd really object to, it just jars me each time I see it. I suppose it's my brain fighting itself whether it's right or not - "They put "ed" after the verb! That's right - NOOOO! It's an irregular standard spelling! That's wrong!"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on July 18, 2012, 04:29:28 PM
"Moot" which used to mean debatable but now is used to mean no longer debatable vs. "mute". http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 18, 2012, 04:44:51 PM
Perhaps not pure grammar and straying more into the realm of "wrond word, cuss it all to tarnation!", but certainly a problem with near homophones:

'Making due' for 'making do' which used to flummox me a bit until I realised that in US pronunciation 'due' and 'do' sound very alike.  In British English, 'due' is pronounced somewhere closer to 'jew', so the two words are never mixed up.

"Changing tact"  for "changing tack".  It's a nautical term for changing direction by putting the bow into the wind.  Changing 'tact' doesn't make any sense.

"Cue" instead of "queue" .  Occasionally I've seen "que" used as, perhaps, a gesture in the right direction!



And a final confusion :  there are a large number of people who can't differentiate between 'imply' and 'infer'.  That's an annoying one.



Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Jones on July 18, 2012, 04:56:41 PM
The one I've noticed lately is 'sell' in place of sale. Signs on the weekend advertising "Yard Sell" or "we're having a sell to raise money for _______."

But don't get me started on the local dialect. Crick instead of creek, ruf instead of roof, mount'n instead of mountain... I'm sure I missed some. :P

This one is horrible right now!

I am part of a local yard SALE site on which people will post "I have XYZ for sell" and "I'd like to sale my QRS".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mikayla on July 18, 2012, 05:20:59 PM
Use of "their" referencing a singular noun -- e.g. "A teacher should put their stuff away here" rather than "A teacher should put his/her stuff here" (ironically, I just saw that on this thread).

There's nothing grammatically wrong with using the singular 'they', particularly when it's about a generic not a specific teacher (to take your example), and there's an indeterminate number of them.  Preferring 'his/her'  or 'his or her' is a matter of style, rather than grammar. 

Shakespeare used it.  That's good enough for me.

Wow, learn something new every day!  I just googled it, and apparently there's also an origin of this attached to the feminist movement, because "he" was the commonly accepted singular form of this.

Anyway, my vote for #1 annoyance is apostrophe abuse, mainly because it seems to be growing at an epic rate. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 18, 2012, 05:28:16 PM

Using 'them' instead of 'those' may be intended to be humorous.  We all know the phrase, 'How do you like them apples?' as a jocular put-down.  It can also be used as an intensive as, 'I sure would like to get me some of them there apples!'.  Everyone knows it's not correct but will use it from time to time.

It's not used that way in the UK, or at least not commonly. Unfortunately the incorrect - and obviously incorrect, not jocular but just in the normal flow of conversation - use is spreading.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 18, 2012, 06:49:14 PM
If we're going for spoken-word, there's a habit among some British people of turning "th" into "f." It makes me INSANE. The word is "anything," not "anyfing."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: TheVapors on July 18, 2012, 07:41:48 PM
For all that I try my best to spell check, for all that I try my best to remember basic grammar rules, I probably still, and will always look like a caveman bashing at a keyboard to someone somewhere. So, when I make mention here of some of the things that make my eye twitch, I'm fully aware that I'm guilty of some of the egregious sins that cause others to wince.

My biggest (minor) annoyances are when people use words that either don't exist or they use a word that to them maybe sounds similar to the word they're actually meaning to use, but it's the wrong word. I came to find out that the latter actually has a word! It's called catachresis or malapropism. And it drives me nuts. (Hey, I've started a sentence with "and." I knew I'd catch a sin here or there.) An example would be someone saying, "This is such flagrant food." I'd have to assume they meant flavorful, or even fragrant, but flagrant food? You've got me there, buddy, perhaps the food is shockingly noticeable.

Others include things already mentioned. (Loose/lose. You're/Your. etc.)

Lastly, I think that some people might find this David Mitchell Soapbox amusing, and appropriate!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kge9ZzjsfW8&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kge9ZzjsfW8&feature=plcp) *The usual warnings apply. It's a YouTube page, so there may be swearing or inappropriate items on the page. The rant, however, is remarkably free from such things.*
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: WestWord on July 18, 2012, 08:20:33 PM
Again not actually grammar, but when someone leaves the letter “l” out of the word “public.”
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 18, 2012, 10:24:11 PM
Perhaps not pure grammar and straying more into the realm of "wrond word, cuss it all to tarnation!", but certainly a problem with near homophones:

'Making due' for 'making do' which used to flummox me a bit until I realised that in US pronunciation 'due' and 'do' sound very alike.  In British English, 'due' is pronounced somewhere closer to 'jew', so the two words are never mixed up.

"Changing tact"  for "changing tack".  It's a nautical term for changing direction by putting the bow into the wind.  Changing 'tact' doesn't make any sense.

"Cue" instead of "queue" .  Occasionally I've seen "que" used as, perhaps, a gesture in the right direction!



And a final confusion :  there are a large number of people who can't differentiate between 'imply' and 'infer'.  That's an annoying one.

Changing tact makes perfect sense to me.  I am changing the tact I used to approach something.  For example, being sensitive to one aspect may have not worked, so I become sensitive to something else and have thus changed my tact.



The one that absolutely blows my mind is the possessive of "I".  College educated people saying, "John and I's paper," makes me stabby!  When was anyone anywhere ever taught that?

Also, "rediculous" instead of "ridiculous."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 18, 2012, 11:05:12 PM
I'll admit, "it's a mute point" drives me bonkers  :P

I spend a lot of time around writers, so I don't see as many of the "alot" or "there/their" type of issues, but I do get frustrated when people don't understand there are different types of writing.  It's like they internalize every writing rule they've ever heard and then insist on never breaking them ever.  I feel that there's a lot of leeway in most types of writing - some rules are followed for academic writing but not for fiction, others are for narrative but not dialogue, others are for one mood but not another.

The biggest of these issues seem to be sentence fragments and passive voice.  Neither are wrong!  Academic writing is full of passive voice - that's how you're supposed to do it!  Yes, it slows down your writing - but sometimes that's the effect you want.  "The diamonds were in the safe" focuses on the diamonds; "the safe held the diamonds" focuses on the safe.  Two different meanings.  Sentence fragments are important, too, if you want a punchier feel.

After seeing a fair sampling of the types of manuscripts actual editors see every day, though, I get the feeling most editors would settle for just having writers know its/it's and how to make new paragraphs properly  ::)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: misha412 on July 19, 2012, 12:44:01 AM
Sorry if this has already been posted.

The misuse and total abuse of the word "like."

"I was, like, going over to my friend Mike's house. And I, like, changed my mind. I decided to, like, call my friend Judy and see if she could, like, go to the mall."

Like fingernails down the blackboard to me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 19, 2012, 02:15:11 AM

Changing tact makes perfect sense to me.  I am changing the tact I used to approach something.  For example, being sensitive to one aspect may have not worked, so I become sensitive to something else and have thus changed my tact. 


But 'tact' isn't defined as having different kinds or qualities.  I've never seen it as having any sort of qualifier or adjective that would suggest you get different kinds.  It is, simply, being sensitive to what's appropriate in dealing with other people or situations.  So if your approach, being sensitive to one aspect, hasn't worked and you change the way you deal with the situation, you aren't changing by being sensitive to something else or changing tact, you are just **changing your approach** to how you deal with the person or the situation by using the same sensitivity, the same tact.  You're just trying a new way of doing it. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 19, 2012, 05:34:08 AM
If we're going for spoken-word, there's a habit among some British people of turning "th" into "f." It makes me INSANE. The word is "anything," not "anyfing."

And in parts of the country, 'anyfink', occasionally with a glottal stop. 

Where I come from, there were some interesting attitudes to verbs, along the lines of 'I seen' for 'I saw' and 'you done' for 'you did'. It didn't happen with all verbs though, and I was never able to work out which ones were vulnerable.

On the 'alot' line, I'll vote against 'moreso'. Two words, please. 'More so', meaning 'to a greater extent'. I know that some authorities are beginning to accept it, but I'll man the barricades against.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Harriet on July 19, 2012, 07:41:56 AM
On the 'alot' line, I'll vote against 'moreso'. Two words, please. 'More so', meaning 'to a greater extent'. I know that some authorities are beginning to accept it, but I'll man the barricades against.

Oh gosh, I'll man with you!

I see this one on ehell a lot -- diffuse / defuse

You don't "diffuse" a tense situation, you defuse it.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 19, 2012, 08:46:52 AM
Oh Lord above, "comprise." I wish it would go away, because every single person I've heard it from in the past year at least has said "comprised of" instead of "composed of" and they are NOT THE SAME WORD.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 19, 2012, 09:00:41 AM
When did the word 'much' cease to be associated with the word 'fun'?

'That was so fun!' makes me want to hit.  It's especially bad when it's used on the news and I hear it more and more frequently. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 19, 2012, 11:47:08 AM

Changing tact makes perfect sense to me.  I am changing the tact I used to approach something.  For example, being sensitive to one aspect may have not worked, so I become sensitive to something else and have thus changed my tact. 


But 'tact' isn't defined as having different kinds or qualities.  I've never seen it as having any sort of qualifier or adjective that would suggest you get different kinds.  It is, simply, being sensitive to what's appropriate in dealing with other people or situations.  So if your approach, being sensitive to one aspect, hasn't worked and you change the way you deal with the situation, you aren't changing by being sensitive to something else or changing tact, you are just **changing your approach** to how you deal with the person or the situation by using the same sensitivity, the same tact.  You're just trying a new way of doing it.

You have changed my mind on the matter  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 19, 2012, 02:35:39 PM
There's a poster on here who overkills with hyphens. He would write something like "I need to back-up my data every night. My personal-computer, which I got at a bright-blue store, is a piece-of-work."
Are you by any chance referring to me?  I realise that my ways with the English language annoy some on this board, and I tend to get rebuked for same -- am trying to do better.

At least I don't say "anyfing" :) ...
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 19, 2012, 02:48:43 PM
This isn't grammar, but spelling.  On book forums, so many people type "heroin" instead of "heroine."  That one little "e" makes a world of difference so please spell correctly!
Might someone with an obsessive passion for chick-lit -- spending so much time reading it, as to threaten their everyday life's becoming unmanageable -- be appropriately called a "heroine addict"?


I don't know how to multi-quote on this board; so rather than making a zillion separate posts, will henceforth resort to "manual quoting".

Will confess that I tend toward tolerance as regards these matters; there are ways in which I too, abuse the language, and I feel that essentially there are worse evils in the world than this stuff.

Harriet, post #30, mentions the "it's / its" thing. While understanding this one, and using it rightly; I can see why people (some of them very intelligent in most respects) get it wrong. Their thoughts: apostrophe plus s is used to denote possession -- so, drat it, "it's" SHOULD mean "of it" !

SoCalVal (post #42), starry diadem (post #45) and Mikayla (post #51), discuss "their" as the gender-neutral single possessive. I use "their" for the purpose -- being male, not wishing to risk slighting the opposite sex by universal use of the male form; and (JMO) "his / her" or "his or her" sound and look infuriatingly cumbersome and stilted, in comparison with "their".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bexx27 on July 19, 2012, 02:57:10 PM

Changing tact makes perfect sense to me.  I am changing the tact I used to approach something.  For example, being sensitive to one aspect may have not worked, so I become sensitive to something else and have thus changed my tact. 


But 'tact' isn't defined as having different kinds or qualities.  I've never seen it as having any sort of qualifier or adjective that would suggest you get different kinds.  It is, simply, being sensitive to what's appropriate in dealing with other people or situations.  So if your approach, being sensitive to one aspect, hasn't worked and you change the way you deal with the situation, you aren't changing by being sensitive to something else or changing tact, you are just **changing your approach** to how you deal with the person or the situation by using the same sensitivity, the same tact.  You're just trying a new way of doing it.

You have changed my mind on the matter  :D

I think what you're going for is "changing tactics."

I'm more annoyed by apostrophe abuse than anything else because I see it all the time from people who should really know better.

Also, "advise" used as a noun; you can ask us to advise you or to give you advice, but please don't ask for advise.

And "diffuse" means to spread out -- it's a completely different word from "defuse." If your goal is to reduce tension, you want to defuse the situation, as you'd de-fuze a bomb.

My worst habits are overusing commas and parentheses.  :-[
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Jones on July 19, 2012, 03:00:53 PM
The one I've noticed lately is 'sell' in place of sale. Signs on the weekend advertising "Yard Sell" or "we're having a sell to raise money for _______."

But don't get me started on the local dialect. Crick instead of creek, ruf instead of roof, mount'n instead of mountain... I'm sure I missed some. :P

This one is horrible right now!

I am part of a local yard SALE site on which people will post "I have XYZ for sell" and "I'd like to sale my QRS".

Update: The owners of the local yard sale site decided that animals (puppies, chickens, rabbits, fish, kittens etc) that people were giving or selling didn't fall under the "yard sale" title. They have set up a sister page named:

Townname area Farm animal's & Pet's of all types

I copied the capitalization and punctuation exactly. I am seriously disappointed.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Kaora on July 19, 2012, 03:10:10 PM
"Moot" which used to mean debatable but now is used to mean no longer debatable vs. "mute". http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/

I think this is because moot is a lost word which survives only in English phrases that use it, also known as "moot point."  This makes it similar to "For kith and kin," or the word bequeath.  When I was growing up, I always thought moot point meant a point that was no longer viable, or no longer discussed.  It was only a couple years ago I learned moot was the term for a convention or meeting in Old English, and that's when it made sense.

How many people can tell you kith and kin means, "For homeland and family," or bequeath comes from an Old English word meaning, "Too will," from be + cwedan?  Tolkien's my idol. :P

Come to think of it, the same afflicts English praytell.  It's from an older formation that is no longer viable, with the first part being from a word of distinct German origin, versus the later pray/prayer, like church prayer.  It was to put an emphasis on the verb, like "Praytell, why did you break that vase?"

On subject...

Misplaced commas.  I have a hard enough time parsing sentences, let's not make me think there is, indeed, a head in the road.  (What's that in the road, a head? vs. What's that in the road ahead?)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 19, 2012, 03:25:13 PM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?


Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: kckgirl on July 19, 2012, 04:33:15 PM
Most of my major annoyances have already been mentioned, but I didn't see the spelling error that routinely drives me up the wall. Many people use defiantly when they mean definitely.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 19, 2012, 04:35:42 PM
There's a poster on here who overkills with hyphens. He would write something like "I need to back-up my data every night. My personal-computer, which I got at a bright-blue store, is a piece-of-work."
Are you by any chance referring to me?  I realise that my ways with the English language annoy some on this board, and I tend to get rebuked for same -- am trying to do better.

At least I don't say "anyfing" :) ...

Nope! Not you. (Frankly I can't remember the name right off, but I do know it's not you.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 19, 2012, 04:36:56 PM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?

Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?

You get on and off things, not on of them and then off of them.

I'm not sure what the rule is, if it has a name like "No Of" or something.

Actually, now that I think, I am not sure there *is* a rule, beyond me disliking extra words.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Harriet on July 19, 2012, 04:43:11 PM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?

Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?

You get on and off things, not on of them and then off of them.

I'm not sure what the rule is, if it has a name like "No Of" or something.

Actually, now that I think, I am not sure there *is* a rule, beyond me disliking extra words.

I am seeing advice on both sides...
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
This site says "Off of" is the opposite of "Onto."

Get onto the horse
Get off of the horse

It does also say that it is less accepted in UK English, if that's where you happen to be.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 19, 2012, 05:31:35 PM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?

Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?

You get on and off things, not on of them and then off of them.

I'm not sure what the rule is, if it has a name like "No Of" or something.

Actually, now that I think, I am not sure there *is* a rule, beyond me disliking extra words.

I am seeing advice on both sides...
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
This site says "Off of" is the opposite of "Onto."

Get onto the horse
Get off of the horse

It does also say that it is less accepted in UK English, if that's where you happen to be.

That was my thought, too, Harriet, about the "onto" and "off of".  That was why not using "of" didn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MOM21SON on July 19, 2012, 06:27:13 PM
I answer 20-25 emails per hour, 8 hours a day, at my job.  A lot of times I have to tell people their order has been canceled.  About once a month I get a response back from someone that says, "I have been a teacher for 20, 30, etc years and it's CANCELLED!

I am not allowed to write back that both are acceptable.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: rose red on July 19, 2012, 06:40:40 PM
Most of my major annoyances have already been mentioned, but I didn't see the spelling error that routinely drives me up the wall. Many people use defiantly when they mean definitely.

Ohhhhhh.  That and "Peak" instead of "Peek" 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on July 19, 2012, 06:45:38 PM
...or pique.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 19, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Most of my major annoyances have already been mentioned, but I didn't see the spelling error that routinely drives me up the wall. Many people use defiantly when they mean definitely.

Ohhhhhh.  That and "Peak" instead of "Peek"

Oh yeah. "Sneak Peak" drives me up a wall.

Seriously, people. It's NOT that hard to put a little effort in and make sure things are right!

Most of my peeves have already been mentioned (its/it's, their/there/they're, you're/your, alot, alright.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Kaora on July 19, 2012, 09:31:42 PM
I answer 20-25 emails per hour, 8 hours a day, at my job.  A lot of times I have to tell people their order has been canceled.  About once a month I get a response back from someone that says, "I have been a teacher for 20, 30, etc years and it's CANCELLED!

I am not allowed to write back that both are acceptable.

English being weird?  I personally use double-LL's, but I know both are okay.  Cancelled, levelled, travelled, however, drives Opera's spellcheck nuts. :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 20, 2012, 02:11:40 AM
I answer 20-25 emails per hour, 8 hours a day, at my job.  A lot of times I have to tell people their order has been canceled.  About once a month I get a response back from someone that says, "I have been a teacher for 20, 30, etc years and it's CANCELLED!

I am not allowed to write back that both are acceptable.

English being weird?  I personally use double-LL's, but I know both are okay.  Cancelled, levelled, travelled, however, drives Opera's spellcheck nuts. :)


The double-L is standard UK English.  I thought that US practice was to drop the second L, possibly as a result of Noah Webster's campaign to get a strong differentiation between UK and US English.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 20, 2012, 02:49:33 AM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?

Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?

You get on and off things, not on of them and then off of them.

I'm not sure what the rule is, if it has a name like "No Of" or something.

Actually, now that I think, I am not sure there *is* a rule, beyond me disliking extra words.

I am seeing advice on both sides...
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
This site says "Off of" is the opposite of "Onto."

Get onto the horse
Get off of the horse

It does also say that it is less accepted in UK English, if that's where you happen to be.

That was my thought, too, Harriet, about the "onto" and "off of".  That was why not using "of" didn't make sense to me.

It was taught to me as a redundant preposition and that the difference was because 'onto' is a word in its own right, but 'offof' isn't. Compare and contrast, as my English teacher used to say, 'continue on' which is also incorrect because the 'continue' implies the 'on'. I'll buy that it's acceptable in the US but it's bad English in the UK (Partridge calls it a 'vulgar Cockneyism' but I do get the impression that he was a bit of a snob. Also a New Zealander, which does make it seem a little odd that he should be the Pure English man).

Oh, have we had 'imply' and 'infer' yet?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinklightbulb on July 20, 2012, 03:15:10 AM
"Defiantly" for "definitely". In fact, any incorrect spelling of "definitely".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on July 20, 2012, 06:20:56 AM
Me again - off of. Just no. I got off the horse, I did not get off of it. After all, I didn't get on of it so why would I get off of it?

Can you please explain to me why that is wrong?

You get on and off things, not on of them and then off of them.

I'm not sure what the rule is, if it has a name like "No Of" or something.

Actually, now that I think, I am not sure there *is* a rule, beyond me disliking extra words.

I am seeing advice on both sides...
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html
This site says "Off of" is the opposite of "Onto."

Get onto the horse
Get off of the horse

It does also say that it is less accepted in UK English, if that's where you happen to be.

That was my thought, too, Harriet, about the "onto" and "off of".  That was why not using "of" didn't make sense to me.

It was taught to me as a redundant preposition and that the difference was because 'onto' is a word in its own right, but 'offof' isn't. Compare and contrast, as my English teacher used to say, 'continue on' which is also incorrect because the 'continue' implies the 'on'. I'll buy that it's acceptable in the US but it's bad English in the UK (Partridge calls it a 'vulgar Cockneyism' but I do get the impression that he was a bit of a snob. Also a New Zealander, which does make it seem a little odd that he should be the Pure English man).

Oh, have we had 'imply' and 'infer' yet?


Yes, to both of these.

It's a great shame, because one of my favourite songs is "I can't take my eyes off of you", and I both love it and cringe over the "off of" construction. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 20, 2012, 07:01:49 AM
Are you old enough to remember Terry Wogan on Radio Two, playing Little Things Mean A Lot with the lines

Send me the warmth of a secret smile
To show me you haven't forgot


and cranking up his microphone to add, loudly '-TEN!'?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 20, 2012, 07:29:51 AM
Are you old enough to remember Terry Wogan on Radio Two, playing Little Things Mean A Lot with the lines

Send me the warmth of a secret smile
To show me you haven't forgot


and cranking up his microphone to add, loudly '-TEN!'?
[In response to starry diadem writing, "It's a great shame, beacause one of my favourite songs is 'I can't take my eyes off of you', and I both love it and cringe over the 'off of' construction."]

Folks -- have you not heard of poetic licence?  I admit to personal prejudice here, in that Terry Wogan is one of my pet hates, and most un-favourite (if that isn't a grammatical barbarism) people on the entire globe.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on July 20, 2012, 07:30:38 AM
Expresso instead of espresso.

I would never be able to work in a coffeehouse - I'd probably run away screaming after 10 minutes!   :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 20, 2012, 07:59:40 AM

Folks -- have you not heard of poetic licence?  I admit to personal prejudice here, in that Terry Wogan is one of my pet hates, and most un-favourite (if that isn't a grammatical barbarism) people on the entire globe.

Of course. Rearrangement to make the thing scan and rhyme is common enough, and there are other songs in which the grammatical infelicity doesn't grate as much - on me. It presumably would on somebody else. But surely that's what we're seeing throughout this thread: that the reaction to any 'error' ranges from 'meh' via a sharp intake of breath to the desire to run amok with an Armalite and all stages in between depending on personal experience and preference.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Onyx_TKD on July 20, 2012, 01:15:24 PM
For the past year, I've been an officer of a club that requests funding from several sources. The club instructor has been teaching here for many years and is very invested in the club. Since he is very familiar with the plans for all of our annual events, he usually writes a first draft of the funding applications. However, since it's my name and my signature that goes on them, I always do the final editing. This man has an interesting approach to capitalization, punctuation, and parenthetical comments.

The capitalization tends to look like he capitalized normally (beginnings of sentences, proper names, etc.) and then loaded a shotgun with capital letters and fired it at the page. Some of the odd capitalizations look like a misguided effort to emphasize a word, but others completely baffle me. I also remove a lot of commas (that must be the second round of shotgun fire) and  a lot of parenthetical statements that seem irrelevant or redundant.

As an example of his style, he will write an email to me and other club officers that says something like:
"Onyx, please contact Mary (Venue Event Manager) about the Weaver's Swimmeet (vintage underwater basketweaving workshop) and tell her we will need a Microphone for Dr. John Weaver (Expert Underwater basket Weaver and Teacher with 18 years Experience)."
First of all, all "Mary" needs to know is that we want a microphone. She doesn't care if its for Dr. Weaver, basket-weaver extraordinaire, or an Elvis impersonator. Second, Dr. Weaver's years of basket-weaving experience have nothing to do with whether he needs a microphone; he needs a microphone because he has a quiet voice and is teaching in a large venue. Third, all the recipients of the email know Mary, and what type of event we're having, and who Dr. Weaver is, and why he is teaching here, etc., etc. We've been planning the darn event and dealing with Mary for every previous event this year!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on July 20, 2012, 03:43:55 PM
Predominately. It's predominantly. The former is a verb. You don't make adverbs out of verbs; you make them out of adjectives.

I'm kind of meh about verbing nouns. Since I'm a fan of saving space in writing, I like being able to say "So-and-so hosts" instead of "So-and-so is the host." However, I can't get behind the recent trend of nouning verbs: "the ask," "the reveal," "a good get."

Entitled for titled. You are entitled to your opinion about that book, but the book is titled "(Insert Title Here)."

"Between you and I." We all learned in school that "Me and John went" is wrong; it's "John and I went." But some people got the message that not only should the "I" go last, but that it should always be "I," not "me." It's easy to figure out which one to use: Recast the sentence without the "John and." "I went to the store," so "John and I went to the store." "She invited me to the party," so "She invited John and me to the party."

Then again, you have folks who avoid the whole issue by using "myself": "John and myself went ... ." I don't know if they use "myself" because they don't know whether to use "I" or "me," or if they think it sounds classier.

Principal/principle. They can both be nouns (The principal of the school is a man of principles), but principal is mainly an adjective, and principle never is.

Edited to fix misplaced punctuation.

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 20, 2012, 05:16:02 PM

Folks -- have you not heard of poetic licence?  I admit to personal prejudice here, in that Terry Wogan is one of my pet hates, and most un-favourite (if that isn't a grammatical barbarism) people on the entire globe.

Of course. Rearrangement to make the thing scan and rhyme is common enough, and there are other songs in which the grammatical infelicity doesn't grate as much - on me. It presumably would on somebody else. But surely that's what we're seeing throughout this thread: that the reaction to any 'error' ranges from 'meh' via a sharp intake of breath to the desire to run amok with an Armalite and all stages in between depending on personal experience and preference.
For sure -- things grate on us just because they do (or don't because they don't), and it doesn't and needn't make sense, and differs between different people.  My comment was "in fun".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: silvercelt on July 20, 2012, 10:45:22 PM
Thought of another peeve of mine.

"Rediculous".  Ahhhhh!  There is no "e" in ridiculous! 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 20, 2012, 10:48:59 PM
Hunnert, cousint, and acrosst.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 21, 2012, 09:07:30 AM
Hunnert, cousint, and acrosst.

Also, 'chimbly' and 'liberry'.

Also, I have known people who do not have a 'snack'.  They have a 'smack'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 21, 2012, 09:39:29 PM
"Ridonkulous" makes me want to punch someone. That is just AAAAAAGGH.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Chickadee on July 22, 2012, 12:43:02 PM
Also, 'chimbly' and 'liberry'.
Also, I have known people who do not have a 'snack'.  They have a 'smack'.

Ah, the "chimbley & liberry" torture. Thipu, I see you have met my husband. I actually grit my teeth when he says those words!

Also, two I see frequently: counsel versus council. They don't even sound the same  :-\ .
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 22, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
Also, two I see frequently: counsel versus council. They don't even sound the same  :-\ .

I pronounce them the same - kown-sull.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 22, 2012, 01:06:49 PM

Also, 'chimbly' and 'liberry'.


'Feb-ury' and 'Secketry'
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mikayla on July 22, 2012, 01:11:33 PM
Gone missing (or "went missing").  No, she IS or WAS missing.

"To die for!"  (Real estate agents use this a lot, and no, as much as I love fireplaces, I'm not going to sacrifice my life for one).

Under annoying word derivations, I nominate "wanna".  Orally, it doesn't sound bad, but in writing...ugh.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on July 22, 2012, 01:41:55 PM
I see far too many people using "incidences" when they mean "incidents."   >:(
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Barney girl on July 22, 2012, 01:57:46 PM
"Moot" which used to mean debatable but now is used to mean no longer debatable vs. "mute". http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/

I think this is because moot is a lost word which survives only in English phrases that use it, also known as "moot point."  This makes it similar to "For kith and kin," or the word bequeath.  When I was growing up, I always thought moot point meant a point that was no longer viable, or no longer discussed.  It was only a couple years ago I learned moot was the term for a convention or meeting in Old English, and that's when it made sense.

How many people can tell you kith and kin means, "For homeland and family," or bequeath comes from an Old English word meaning, "Too will," from be + cwedan?  Tolkien's my idol. :P

Come to think of it, the same afflicts English praytell.  It's from an older formation that is no longer viable, with the first part being from a word of distinct German origin, versus the later pray/prayer, like church prayer.  It was to put an emphasis on the verb, like "Praytell, why did you break that vase?"

On subject...

Misplaced commas.  I have a hard enough time parsing sentences, let's not make me think there is, indeed, a head in the road.  (What's that in the road, a head? vs. What's that in the road ahead?)


We used to have moots when I was at university. They're mock trials.  http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/law/life/mooting.aspx
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on July 22, 2012, 04:52:29 PM
Well if we're talking about pronunciation:

"De-ter-i-yate" instead of "deteriorate."

There's a sports team called the Warriors in our area. The radio announcers and sportscasters unfailingly pronounce the name "Woy-ers"--rhyming with "lawyers." Arrgggh!!!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 22, 2012, 07:27:56 PM
"i.e." and "e.g." are NOT the same thing.  Using them wrong makes you look more ignorant than not using them in the first place!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on July 22, 2012, 07:51:23 PM
"i.e." and "e.g." are NOT the same thing.  Using them wrong makes you look more ignorant than not using them in the first place!

Ack! That drives me up the wall!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on July 22, 2012, 08:00:25 PM
Me, too!  Please, understand what you're saying/writing before you put it out there!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on July 22, 2012, 08:10:09 PM
"i.e." and "e.g." are NOT the same thing.  Using them wrong makes you look more ignorant than not using them in the first place!
One of my old jobs years and years ago was secretary to an Accounting Department.  One of the managers would dictate all his letters and memos to me and he positively sprinkled them with i.e.'s and e.g.'s.  If I tried to correct (or even delete) them when I typed the documents, he would just make me retype it all. 

He would also find a way to use "irregardless" in nearly every memo.   >:(
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Pippen on July 22, 2012, 09:01:32 PM
'Healthful', 'Flavourful' and ' Nutritional' (as in the nutritional value as opposed to nutrient value) drive me nuts!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on July 23, 2012, 08:45:32 AM
Irregardless is one that does me in...   agghh
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 23, 2012, 08:52:33 AM
Ooh, almost forgot - when my high school got renovated my senior year, they redid the front doors.  And put up a sign "VISITOR'S SIGN IN AT FRONT DESK."  Etched into the glass.  It was too expensive to replace, so they just left it that way.  (They did take out the brand-new tiling which mistakenly spelled out "666" right in front of the office, though.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Lexophile on July 23, 2012, 01:17:40 PM
Oh where do I start?

"utilized" for "used" - "utilized" means an object is being used for an activity other than which it was intended.
"lead" for "led" - just because the word "read" is spelled the same in the present and past tenses doesn't mean "lead" is.
Any use of "lastly."
"comprise" instead of "compose" = the word "comprise" means "to include", so when someone writes "is comprised of", it's incorrect.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on July 23, 2012, 03:20:21 PM
I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".

I know this was incredibly far back in the thread, but after reading through all 7 pages, my jaw is still hanging over the bolded phrase. Please tell me that teacher is no longer manipulating the malleable minds of our young.

I think all of my quirks have been covered here. Proper use of comprised vs. composed of is probably my most bothersome one.

One I haven’t seen here yet:
Thanks to my grade 9 English teacher and the venerable Strunk and White, any time someone tells me they feel nauseous I want to respond “yeah, you are a bit fetid—I’m feeling nauseated thanks to you.” But, I think that common usage has made the cause (nauseous) / effect (nauseated) distinction archaic.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: portabella on July 23, 2012, 08:06:13 PM
These aren't just quirks.  They're common examples of sloppy diction, grammar, and vocabulary usage.

When people say “I could care less”.  Most people do this, but if they would think about it for a second the correct expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

People who don’t know the difference between “effect” and “affect”.

“Pacific” is the name of an ocean.  Maybe you mean “specific”.

“For all intensive purposes” ?  huh?  Try “for all intents and purposes”.

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on July 23, 2012, 08:21:04 PM
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Pippen on July 23, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
These aren't jusy quirks.  They're common examples of sloppy diction, grammar, and vocabulary usage.

When people say “I could care less”.  Most people do this, but if they would think about it for a second the correct expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

People who don’t know the difference between “effect” and “affect”.

“Pacific” is the name of an ocean.  Maybe you mean “specific”.

“For all intensive purposes” ?  huh?  Try “for all intents and purposes”.

How did you get inside my brain?! While you are there can you have a bit of a tidy up please?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 23, 2012, 09:30:58 PM
Oh, just popped over to a different ehell thread and saw this one.

Copywrite.

grrrrrr!  CopyRIGHT!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: portabella on July 23, 2012, 11:52:42 PM
These aren't jusy quirks.  They're common examples of sloppy diction, grammar, and vocabulary usage.

When people say “I could care less”.  Most people do this, but if they would think about it for a second the correct expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

People who don’t know the difference between “effect” and “affect”.

“Pacific” is the name of an ocean.  Maybe you mean “specific”.

“For all intensive purposes” ?  huh?  Try “for all intents and purposes”.

How did you get inside my brain?! While you are there can you have a bit of a tidy up please?

 ;D

I know people who regularly commit all the infractions I mentioned, and they have master's degrees.  How?  ???
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: JennJenn68 on July 24, 2012, 07:19:30 AM
I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".

I know this was incredibly far back in the thread, but after reading through all 7 pages, my jaw is still hanging over the bolded phrase. Please tell me that teacher is no longer manipulating the malleable minds of our young.


Unfortunately, she is--but not at our school.  (Nothing to do with that, though.  She was offered a post closer to home.  She'll be teaching as long as her father is a high-up in our local school board.  Politics can be so much fun!)

I might have missed it (this thread is rapidly becoming a full spool!) but one pronunciation that causes me to blow all of my fuses is "nu-cu-lar" for "nuclear".  ARGH!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on July 24, 2012, 08:54:35 AM
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Twik on July 24, 2012, 08:59:52 AM
I've even seen teachers make this oh-so-painful error, and I shudder to think that we are entrusting the education of the young to those who haven't yet managed to grasp Basic English 101.  When I gently pointed it out to the grade two teacher at our school, as the offending phrase in question was posted (in the teacher's printing) on the bulletin board where parents were going to be able to see it, she said that it "didn't matter" because "children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".

I know this was incredibly far back in the thread, but after reading through all 7 pages, my jaw is still hanging over the bolded phrase. Please tell me that teacher is no longer manipulating the malleable minds of our young.

Don't think that this is an individual quirk of this particular teacher. She was most likely taught that in her own teacher training. (Been there, bitten my tongue until it bled in courses like that.)

Spelling, grammar and all that old-fashioned nonsense just "interferes with a child's creativity". Which is why the typical internet comment nowadays is "u mad, bro?", repeated ad infinitum.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 24, 2012, 09:47:07 AM
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.

I think Gollum and the Orcses must have gotten to people. . . .
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 24, 2012, 10:42:24 AM
Oh, just popped over to a different ehell thread and saw this one.

Copywrite.

grrrrrr!  CopyRIGHT!

To add to that, it's copyrightED not copywritten; and one someone is strung up by his neck, he is hanged, not hung.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 24, 2012, 10:44:29 AM
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.

I think Gollum and the Orcses must have gotten to people. . . .

Simplistic instead of simple really makes my hackles stand up. 

Some years ago, an educator from the museum compiled a list of good books on the ancient world for children.  It was a nice piece of work except for one thing.  When she meant to say that information was presented in a 'simple way' that young children could understand, she consistently used 'simplistic'.

She meant it as a positive statement but I have never heard 'simplistic' used in a positive
 way before or since.

There's also the problem of 'utilize'.  'Use' is a perfectly good word but the extra two syllables sound classier to certain writers. 



People do think that an extra syllable or two makes writing sound more sophisticated.  It just makes the writer look pretentious and silly. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Chickadee on July 24, 2012, 11:18:17 AM
Just thought of another one. The patch of grass that separates the lanes of a highway or interstate is the median, not the meridian.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on July 24, 2012, 04:58:48 PM
I was looking through an artisan's online store and she kept describing her pieces as "simple but covetous" or "small but covetous". Either she means "coveted" or her pieces have amazing awareness of the world.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 24, 2012, 05:53:26 PM
Although would someone who writes back-page copy be a copywriter?  *ducks*
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: kckgirl on July 24, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Just thought of another one. The patch of grass that separates the lanes of a highway or interstate is the median, not the meridian.

It's also not the medium.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on July 24, 2012, 10:14:20 PM
One that I see a lot here on Ehell that I have to stop myself from jumping in as the grammar police for every time:

"vowel renewal"

So, I just tell myself that marriage certificates are printed with indelible ink only on consonants (and sometimes 'y'), requiring you to go get the vowels re-inked every few years to keep the marriage strong.  ;)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 24, 2012, 10:17:18 PM
One that I see a lot here on Ehell that I have to stop myself from jumping in as the grammar police for every time:

"vowel renewal"

So, I just tell myself that marriage certificates are printed with indelible ink only on consonants (and sometimes 'y'), requiring you to go get the vowels re-inked every few years to keep the marriage strong.  ;)

Or how about "walking down the isle"? I always have to stop myself from saying I hope it's not too big of an island!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 25, 2012, 12:10:17 AM
"Bring'" being substituted for "take" drives me bonkers.

Not nearly as annoying but still pretty far up there is "Do you want to come with?"  I realize the "me/us" is implied, but I want to ask, "With what?  A spoon in my hand?  A drum on my knee?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 25, 2012, 03:57:42 AM
When people say “I could care less”.  Most people do this, but if they would think about it for a second the correct expression is “I couldn’t care less”.

I might venture a little bit of defence of the “I could care less” version.  I agree, “couldn’t care less” makes more obvious sense, and it’s the form which I use.  However, the “could” usage is, I feel, not completely nonsensical.

“I couldn’t care less”:  I have no interest or concern whatever about this matter – there is no way I could care any less about it, than I do.

“I could care less”:  I have almost no interest or concern about this matter – perhaps I could indeed care even less about it, but I’d have to try hard, to perform that feat.

The discussion board Wordreference.com (English only), which focuses on points of English usage, once had a five-page thread about this issue.  Consensus was, that the “could care less” version is the one which very many people use, rightly or wrongly;  and that, as above, one can claim that it sort-of makes sense.
 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redsoil on July 25, 2012, 05:41:57 AM
There is a TV ad at present which grates terribly.  "A really better deal." 

REALLY???
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 25, 2012, 10:43:29 AM
''I could care less' instead of 'I couldn't care less' is almost a given in NYC. 

Here, 'I could care less' is accompanied by a raising of the shoulders, a spreading of the hands and a rising tone at the end of the sentence to indicate a question. 

I would ask those who doubt this to stand up and do the schtick.  It's very emphatic.  It also feels great to perform.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: carol1412 on July 25, 2012, 03:56:22 PM
Our associate pastor makes an announcement to all the guests on Sunday to stop at the Guest Services desk to pick up a bag with information and a free gift.

A "Free" gift.

I cringe every time he says that.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MOM21SON on July 25, 2012, 04:19:23 PM
I answer 20-25 emails per hour, 8 hours a day, at my job.  A lot of times I have to tell people their order has been canceled.  About once a month I get a response back from someone that says, "I have been a teacher for 20, 30, etc years and it's CANCELLED!

I am not allowed to write back that both are acceptable.

English being weird?  I personally use double-LL's, but I know both are okay.  Cancelled, levelled, travelled, however, drives Opera's spellcheck nuts. :)


The double-L is standard UK English.  I thought that US practice was to drop the second L, possibly as a result of Noah Webster's campaign to get a strong differentiation between UK and US English.

I am in the US, and we have only US customers.  I just giggle.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on July 25, 2012, 06:40:20 PM
Just to irritate me, my sweet sweet husband relishes telling me he went to the ATM machine and entered his PIN number.

The M is for Machine and the N is for Number, folks!  Grrrr...

But, then again, hot water heater bothers me, too.  You don't heat hot water; you heat cold water.   ::)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on July 25, 2012, 11:51:05 PM
The one I forgot: I and me.

'Me and KayMarie are distressed by aberrant apostrophes.'

No, we aren't. 'KayMarie and I are distressed by aberrant apostrophes.'

It's not difficult: use the same one you would use if there were (subjunctive!) only you - so 'I am distressed', not 'me am distressed'. And you yourself always come last. That's easy to remember - this is an etiquette board, and etiquette says I should let KayMarie go first, right?
And its opposite: "They gave some apples to KayMarie and I." Same rule.  DH tried to argue this one with me, saying that Sister Mary Godzilla told him that a plural subject/object was always "KayMarie and I."

Do not argue with a writer who has a Chicago Manual of Style within arm's reach.  >:D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on July 26, 2012, 12:08:10 AM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.

tic!

But it's fine in dialogue, if it's in keeping with the character.  That's the point at which my grammar head gets all explody - to create real and vibrant characters, I can't have them all speaking the Queen's English, with perfect grammar and received pronunciation.  They have to use slang and misuse the language.  The writing of characters and dialogue is where the artist and the pedant clash.
Or the writer and the copy-editor.  If I write the line of dialog in a deliberately thick accent, "Well, hit's jest her word, bein' as how he's daid an' cain't speak fur hisself," the copy-editor does NOT get to change it to "Well, it's just her word, since he's dead and can't speak for himself."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on July 26, 2012, 12:15:49 AM
SoCalVal (post #42), starry diadem (post #45) and Mikayla (post #51), discuss "their" as the gender-neutral single possessive. I use "their" for the purpose -- being male, not wishing to risk slighting the opposite sex by universal use of the male form; and (JMO) "his / her" or "his or her" sound and look infuriatingly cumbersome and stilted, in comparison with "their".
But it's just as easy to recast the sentence so that "their" is the proper form.  "Teachers can put their things in the office for safekeeping" works a lot better than "A teacher can put their things in the office for safekeeping."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 26, 2012, 08:29:13 AM
Sometimes, though, that ploy won't function -- you are stuck between "his (/ or her)", and the not-grammatically-pure "their".  I'm influenced, perhaps, by a story by James Thurber, involving an interview with an eccentric and irascible author.  A chance turn in the conversation causes the bad-tempered literary gent to declare: " 'everybody / their', for Deity's sake ! I hate 'everybody / his'.  A teacher of mine used to say, 'has everybody brought his or her slate?' " ... the guy goes on to utter very hostile epithets about this long-ago teacher.  I'll admit to sympathising with the curmudgeon's sentiments, whilst deploring his manners.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Lexophile on July 26, 2012, 10:29:13 AM
Ooh, ooh, thought of another one - "simplistic" instead of "simple." 

I think that one falls in the category of "it has more syllables, so it MUST be the better word!"

Same thing with "incident." The plural of it is apparently now "incidentses." I think people are confusing it with "incidence." I'm not sure how.

Or intense and intensive.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on July 26, 2012, 10:49:22 AM
Just to irritate me, my sweet sweet husband relishes telling me he went to the ATM machine and entered his PIN number.

The M is for Machine and the N is for Number, folks!  Grrrr...

But, then again, hot water heater bothers me, too.  You don't heat hot water; you heat cold water.   ::)

It's a water heater!     

and I'm with you on the ATM and PIN   

Scratch and itch drive me wild too.  If it itches, you scratch it, you don't itch it.  Few people get that one wrong - but it drives me wild to hear it.

Surely by now learned and taught have been covered.  My stepdad would say, he learned me to drive.  Agghhh!

 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: amylouky on July 26, 2012, 10:53:29 AM
I got an email from a coworker yesterday regarding upcoming work to be done on System X. It included the sentence, "No network maintenance may be scheduled for X date, if it will affect or have an effect on System X."
I'm glad that they used affect/effect correctly, but isn't this redundant?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 26, 2012, 11:43:04 AM
I see a lot of people do it (even here on the Grammar Quirks thread), and I realize that it is "becoming more accepted", but I hate seeing a sentence that begins with "but" or "and".  It briefly annoys me in informal writing but drives me up the wall in formal writing.  The sentence can always easily be restructured to not begin that way or it can be added to the sentence before it with proper punctuation.

I know, I know, lots of people do it, but it still bothers me.  You can flame me now.  :-[
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bexx27 on July 26, 2012, 11:50:14 AM
I see a lot of people do it (even here on the Grammar Quirks thread), and I realize that it is "becoming more accepted", but I hate seeing a sentence that begins with "but" or "and".  It briefly annoys me in informal writing but drives me up the wall in formal writing.  The sentence can always easily be restructured to not begin that way or it can be added to the sentence before it with proper punctuation.

I know, I know, lots of people do it, but it still bothers me.  You can flame me now.  :-[

Well, you're certainly entitled to be bothered by it - this thread is about "quirks," after all - but it's not incorrect.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch05/ch05_sec206.html
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 26, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
I see a lot of people do it (even here on the Grammar Quirks thread), and I realize that it is "becoming more accepted", but I hate seeing a sentence that begins with "but" or "and".  It briefly annoys me in informal writing but drives me up the wall in formal writing.  The sentence can always easily be restructured to not begin that way or it can be added to the sentence before it with proper punctuation.

I know, I know, lots of people do it, but it still bothers me.  You can flame me now.  :-[

Well, you're certainly entitled to be bothered by it - this thread is about "quirks," after all - but it's not incorrect.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch05/ch05_sec206.html

I can't access the link because I am not a subscriber.  It may not be incorrect according to the Chicago style, but it is incorrect according to others.  APA says it is inappropriate because they are joining words; if they are used at the beginning of a sentence, they aren't joining anything.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bexx27 on July 26, 2012, 12:05:06 PM
I see a lot of people do it (even here on the Grammar Quirks thread), and I realize that it is "becoming more accepted", but I hate seeing a sentence that begins with "but" or "and".  It briefly annoys me in informal writing but drives me up the wall in formal writing.  The sentence can always easily be restructured to not begin that way or it can be added to the sentence before it with proper punctuation.

I know, I know, lots of people do it, but it still bothers me.  You can flame me now.  :-[

Well, you're certainly entitled to be bothered by it - this thread is about "quirks," after all - but it's not incorrect.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/ch05/ch05_sec206.html

I can't access the link because I am not a subscriber.  It may not be incorrect according to the Chicago style, but it is incorrect according to others.  APA says it is inappropriate because they are joining words; if they are used at the beginning of a sentence, they aren't joining anything.

Sorry, here's the text (odd, I didn't realize I was a subscriber!):

"5.206Beginning a sentence with a conjunction

There is a widespread belief—one with no historical or grammatical foundation—that it is an error to begin a sentence with a conjunction such as and, but, or so. In fact, a substantial percentage (often as many as 10 percent) of the sentences in first-rate writing begin with conjunctions. It has been so for centuries, and even the most conservative grammarians have followed this practice. Charles Allen Lloyd’s 1938 words fairly sum up the situation as it stands even today:

Next to the groundless notion that it is incorrect to end an English sentence with a preposition, perhaps the most wide-spread of the many false beliefs about the use of our language is the equally groundless notion that it is incorrect to begin one with “but” or “and.” As in the case of the superstition about the prepositional ending, no textbook supports it, but apparently about half of our teachers of English go out of their way to handicap their pupils by inculcating it. One cannot help wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous doctrine ever read any English themselves.7

Still, but as an adversative conjunction can occasionally be unclear at the beginning of a sentence. Evaluate the contrasting force of the but in question, and see whether the needed word is really and; if and can be substituted, then but is almost certainly the wrong word. Consider this example: He went to school this morning. But he left his lunch box on the kitchen table. Between those sentences is an elliptical idea, since the two actions are in no way contradictory. What is implied is something like this: He went to school, intending to have lunch there, but he left his lunch behind. Because and would have made sense in the passage as originally stated, but is not the right word—the idea for the contrastive but should be explicit. To sum up, then, but is a perfectly proper word to open a sentence, but only if the idea it introduces truly contrasts with what precedes. For that matter, but is often an effective word for introducing a paragraph that develops an idea contrary to the one preceding it."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on July 26, 2012, 12:18:48 PM
Commas or periods outside (not "outside of") quotation marks

Accept vs. except

Shorter dashes where an em dash is needed

Excessive hyphenation

"ISBN number"

Towards, afterwards, etc.

Missing commas between adjectives in a series

Awkward phrasing to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition

Gerunds where other words will do

Rhetorical questions punctuated with periods

Unnecessary quotation marks (or missing quotation marks)

Brackets instead of parentheses

Written dialect or dialogue that doesn't resemble natural speech

Tonite, nite, donut, drive-thru, kwik, etc.

Postal abbreviations, unless they're in a mailing address

Excessive acronyms ("alphabet soup") and excessive capitalization

#O%#$%(; or s**** instead of swearing, particularly when it's being read by adults

Some of these are rules. Some are just my quirks. I care a lot about grammar, including many of the rules mentioned in other posts, but I am pretty good about letting go when reading for fun.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on July 26, 2012, 01:15:00 PM
Commas or periods outside (not "outside of") quotation marks

But this is the punctuation rule for non-American English.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 26, 2012, 01:17:01 PM
Commas or periods outside (not "outside of") quotation marks

But this is the punctuation rule for non-American English.

That doesn't mean it still doesn't bother her, though.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on July 26, 2012, 01:59:40 PM
Commas or periods outside (not "outside of") quotation marks

But this is the punctuation rule for non-American English.

That doesn't mean it still doesn't bother her, though.

Indeed. I am an American editor, and as such I primarily edit American publications by American writers, who ought to follow American grammar rules. I acknowledge the differences in different places, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. I'm certain I would adjust if it became necessary.

My annoyances are quite useful in my job, so I haven't worked to turn them off entirely. I merely to turn down the volume so I can read the Internet without going mad.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Chickadee on July 26, 2012, 02:15:04 PM
Just to irritate me, my sweet sweet husband relishes telling me he went to the ATM machine and entered his PIN number.

The M is for Machine and the N is for Number, folks!  Grrrr...

But, then again, hot water heater bothers me, too.  You don't heat hot water; you heat cold water.   ::)

I twitch when someone tells me she gets up at the unseemly hour of 5:00 AM in the morning. Yup, if it's 5:00 AM, then it's the morning  ::)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Moonie on July 26, 2012, 02:34:39 PM
Funner and funnest instead of more fun and most fun.  And "more better" gets me as well.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Margo on July 26, 2012, 02:47:27 PM
We've got this far, and no-one has mentioned uninterested and disinterested yet? That one really annoys me. My other pet hate is the  use of 'refute' when what is meant is 'deny' or 'dispute'. It seems to come up every time anyone is accused of any crime or wrongdoing.

I get very annoyed by bad grammar and incorrect use of words in formal reports and professional letters.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 26, 2012, 04:07:02 PM
Commas or periods outside (not "outside of") quotation marks

But this is the punctuation rule for non-American English.

Is it? I'm not American, and my punctuation goes inside my quotation marks. I had rather assumed that punctuation outside was American, but I admit that I was basing that largely on an American word-processing programme (not one of the standard ones) in which the grammar checker didn't have a British English option, and which went totally hysterical with rage when I wanted to put a full stop inside my quotation marks. It wasn't a very good programme - it use to make spelling and grammar changes even when the option was turned off.

I gained a terrifying reputation once because one of my responsibilities as the most junior member of staff was to check letters drafted by a manager and typed by secretarial staff; I used to send them back with the spelling and punctuation corrected. Since I was technical staff, not secretarial, this didn't go down well, because the secretaries were told to type what the manager had written, not what he ought to have written. I was too young to be either pragmatic (it's his name on the letter so he'll be the one who looks unprofessional, not me) or tactful. I did hear, a long time later, that I was still being used to terrify junior staff a good five years after I left, along the lines of "if you're using 'however' or 'therefore', you have to have at least a semi-colon before it, not just a comma on each side. Why? Because if you don't, FR Hippy Chick sends your letter back."

Ah, happy days...

We haven't had 'barbeque' for 'barbecue' yet, have we? I hate 'barbeque'. I always, always read it the way it would be pronounced, which is bar-beck, or possibly bar-be-kay.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on July 26, 2012, 04:16:25 PM
Sometimes it is necessary to put punctuation marks outside the quotation marks, because what is quoted does not make sense with the quote. Bleh.  That's easier to illustrate than it is to explain.

Sample: Did your mother-in-law really say that "All cats are disgusting creatures and I won't have one near MY grandchild"?  MIL wasn't asking the question, so the ? goes outside the quotes, not inside.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Jones on July 26, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Someone posted this on my FB page today (apparently I have a reputation) and I thought I would share:

(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo24/chandanista/Howtowritegood-1.jpg)

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on July 26, 2012, 05:00:17 PM
12.  Always proofread.  You might have something out.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on July 26, 2012, 08:20:56 PM
Quote
We haven't had 'barbeque' for 'barbecue' yet, have we? I hate 'barbeque'. I always, always read it the way it would be pronounced, which is bar-beck, or possibly bar-be-kay.

I hear you! I also can't stand BBQ or bar-b-que or any other cutesy spelling unless it's the official name of a barbecue restaurant.

It also bugs me when the word is used for all events where food is cooked/eaten outside. If you're cooking chicken or ribs or pork with barbecue sauce, that's a barbecue. If you're throwing burgers and dogs on the charcoal or gas grill, that's not a barbecue; it's a cookout.

Quote
Sometimes, though, that ploy won't function -- you are stuck between "his (/ or her)", and the not-grammatically-pure "their".  I'm influenced, perhaps, by a story by James Thurber, involving an interview with an eccentric and irascible author.  A chance turn in the conversation causes the bad-tempered literary gent to declare: " 'everybody / their', for Deity's sake ! I hate 'everybody / his'.  A teacher of mine used to say, 'has everybody brought his or her slate?' " ... the guy goes on to utter very hostile epithets about this long-ago teacher.  I'll admit to sympathising with the curmudgeon's sentiments, whilst deploring his manners.

The teacher could have avoided the whole thing by saying, "Have you all brought your slates?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: TZ on July 26, 2012, 09:33:46 PM
The misuse of "that" and "which" makes my skin crawl every time I see it. The two words are not interchangeable. Unfortunately, I see this one a lot.

I also get annoyed by the improper addition or omission of a comma before a conjunction. You do use a comma if an independent clause follows the conjunction. If there isn't a complete sentence after the conjunction, there shouldn't be a comma.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on July 26, 2012, 10:01:42 PM
The misuse of "that" and "which" makes my skin crawl every time I see it. The two words are not interchangeable. Unfortunately, I see this one a lot.

I also get annoyed by the improper addition or omission of a comma before a conjunction. You do use a comma if an independent clause follows the conjunction. If there isn't a complete sentence after the conjunction, there shouldn't be a comma.

What also bothers me is when someone uses "what" when "which" is the proper word.

It is not, "What movie do you want to see?"; it is "Which movie do you want to see?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on July 27, 2012, 03:21:25 AM
The misuse of "that" and "which" makes my skin crawl every time I see it. The two words are not interchangeable. Unfortunately, I see this one a lot.

I'll confess that I am not totally sound on that one and if somebody could PM me a link to a site addressing it clearly (do you see what I did there?), I would be grateful.

Come on, at least I know that I'm not sound!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on July 27, 2012, 08:31:33 AM
The misuse of "that" and "which" makes my skin crawl every time I see it. The two words are not interchangeable. Unfortunately, I see this one a lot.

I'll confess that I am not totally sound on that one and if somebody could PM me a link to a site addressing it clearly (do you see what I did there?), I would be grateful.

Come on, at least I know that I'm not sound!

In a nutshell, "which" is for clarification.  "That" is for specifying one out of a number of choices.  So "I cut down the tree that is on the hill" means "There are many other trees, but I specifically cut down one."  Conversely, "I cut down the tree which is on the hill" means "I cut down a tree, and for your additional information, the tree was also on a hill."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on July 27, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
The misuse of "that" and "which" makes my skin crawl every time I see it. The two words are not interchangeable. Unfortunately, I see this one a lot.

I also get annoyed by the improper addition or omission of a comma before a conjunction. You do use a comma if an independent clause follows the conjunction. If there isn't a complete sentence after the conjunction, there shouldn't be a comma.

Preach it!  I work with someone who simply cannot (or refuses to) grasp the concept of the compound predicate, and I have to yank innumerable improper commas out of everything she writes. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: katiescarlett on July 27, 2012, 04:01:51 PM
Less versus Fewer.  (I know, a capitalization violation. >:D)

I find it especially cringe-worthy when I see it by vendors as "20 items or less."  Items in a cart is quantifiable, not a mass.  Use fewer.

Sounds like a song.  You know, it was a capitalization violation...that day the grammar went bad.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Twik on July 27, 2012, 04:11:41 PM
I twitch when someone tells me she gets up at the unseemly hour of 5:00 AM in the morning. Yup, if it's 5:00 AM, then it's the morning  ::)

This reminds me of the story of two future Canadian Prime Ministers, early in their career, sharing a rail trip to a political destination. Politician A was something of a wunderkind, and had established a reputation as a rising star and an intellectual. Politician B was from a poor family, raised in a small town, and was quite excited to be sharing the same rail car as Politician A.

However, when he entered the car, Politician A barely looked up from his notes to say hello. Desperate to make some conversation, Politician B noted, "It's raining outside."

WIthout looking up, Politican A replied, "If it's raining, it has to be outside."

They spent the rest of the trip in total silence.

(Canadians will probably be able to figure out who these two gentlemen were.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Pippen on July 27, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
That Google Chrome will not let me change the default settings to UK English on their spell check. The little red line under correctly spelled words drives me a bit nutty.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 28, 2012, 10:47:11 AM
Oh, and after you walk down the "isle", you get married at the "alter". It's an ALTAR, people.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on July 28, 2012, 11:02:09 AM
Speaking of that, there was a piece on the local news about a supermarket that was starting a special place for men to make shopping easier for them.  This area concentrates all the things men want for their Man Caves in a compact space.  They call it the 'Man Isle'. 

This does make sense in connection with the Man Cave but, the way things are these days, you really have to wonder if they meant 'Man Aisle'. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pwv on July 28, 2012, 11:31:08 AM
I get irritated when people write about the "breaks" on their car.  It's brakes, not "breaks."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on July 28, 2012, 01:36:54 PM
Speaking of that, there was a piece on the local news about a supermarket that was starting a special place for men to make shopping easier for them.  This area concentrates all the things men want for their Man Caves in a compact space.  They call it the 'Man Isle'. 

This does make sense in connection with the Man Cave but, the way things are these days, you really have to wonder if they meant 'Man Aisle'. 

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the "man whatever" construction? Man cave is a particular hate.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on July 28, 2012, 02:38:02 PM
Speaking of that, there was a piece on the local news about a supermarket that was starting a special place for men to make shopping easier for them.  This area concentrates all the things men want for their Man Caves in a compact space.  They call it the 'Man Isle'. 

This does make sense in connection with the Man Cave but, the way things are these days, you really have to wonder if they meant 'Man Aisle'. 

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the "man whatever" construction? Man cave is a particular hate.

I hate "manscaping" for male spa-type grooming, etc.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on July 28, 2012, 02:55:50 PM
Speaking of that, there was a piece on the local news about a supermarket that was starting a special place for men to make shopping easier for them.  This area concentrates all the things men want for their Man Caves in a compact space.  They call it the 'Man Isle'. 

This does make sense in connection with the Man Cave but, the way things are these days, you really have to wonder if they meant 'Man Aisle'.

And let's not get onto that island which is roughly equidistant between England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales...
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giraffe, Esq on July 31, 2012, 06:12:37 PM
That Google Chrome will not let me change the default settings to UK English on their spell check. The little red line under correctly spelled words drives me a bit nutty.

Amusingly, my blackberry sometimes thinks I do want UK English -- it gives me the little red squiggles under "favorite" and tries to tell me I should say "favourite".  (I do adore the ou construction and often use it, but hey, in texting, every letter counts!)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Moonie on August 01, 2012, 10:00:34 AM
Board and bored.  You can be bored, but not board...unless you're dead, then maybe you will be a bit stiff :) .
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 01, 2012, 10:51:06 AM
There are some other things that bother me. 

ATM machines
ISBN numbers
PIN numbers. 

The 'M' in ATM stands for 'machine'.
The 'N' in ISBN and PIN stands for 'number'.

'Mount Fujiyama' nettles me too.  It's Fujiyama or Mt. Fuji because 'yama' means 'mountain'. 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 01, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
There are some other things that bother me. 

ATM machines
ISBN numbers
PIN numbers. 

The 'M' in ATM stands for 'machine'.
The 'N' in ISBN and PIN stands for 'number'.

'Mount Fujiyama' nettles me too.  It's Fujiyama or Mt. Fuji because 'yama' means 'mountain'.

Huh, I didn't know that.  I will now henceforth correct myself because I get just as irritated about the redundancy of things like ATM machines and PIN numbers.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on August 01, 2012, 12:04:00 PM
In my own defense, though, I did use zombie as a verb once.  I work in a place where a lot of people stagger in at very early hours.  There's no other way to describe them but 'you should see the numbers of people who zombie across the parking lot at 5am!'


That is a perfect description. I love it.

I don't mind people converting nouns into verbs or verbs into adjectives as long as it has a purpose. In your case, "zombie" perfectly conveys the idea. Sure, you could say "you should see the numbers of people who cross the parking lot like zombies at 5am" but it is a much clunkier sentence.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on August 01, 2012, 05:00:55 PM
Here's a great verbing for ya:

http://www.dow.com/solutionism/index.htm
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 02, 2012, 12:57:32 PM
Here's a great verbing for ya:

http://www.dow.com/solutionism/index.htm

I don't even know what to say ...
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 02, 2012, 03:04:38 PM
I've seen most of my particular grammar peeves here, but  the one that makes me go (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/smiley_troll.gif) and want to (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/fryingpan.gif) is "I seen."  It shows up waaaaay too often on the evening news, when they interview people. "I seen the guys run outa the bank and start shooting."  (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/gaah.gif)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on August 02, 2012, 03:30:19 PM
I've seen most of my particular grammar peeves here, but  the one that makes me go (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/smiley_troll.gif) and want to (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/fryingpan.gif) is "I seen."  It shows up waaaaay too often on the evening news, when they interview people. "I seen the guys run outa the bank and start shooting."  (http://www3.telus.net/smile/images/gaah.gif)

"I (done) seed" is worse...*shudder*
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on August 02, 2012, 03:38:51 PM

In my own defense, though, I did use zombie as a verb once.  I work in a place where a lot of people stagger in at very early hours.  There's no other way to describe them but 'you should see the numbers of people who zombie across the parking lot at 5am!'



"Zombie across the parking lot" gives me a very clear image of people (dressed like zombies) doing a funky, moonwalk type of dance.   :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: BeneWoman on August 02, 2012, 03:42:18 PM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 02, 2012, 06:12:04 PM
I hate when people say "I'm going to try and X.". No, you're going to try to X.  Technically, you could try something and do something else, but we all know that's not what you're saying.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: kkl123 on August 02, 2012, 06:23:22 PM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".

And please don't get me going on "eksetera" or "ect" instead of "et cetera" and "etc".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on August 02, 2012, 08:40:53 PM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".

And please don't get me going on "eksetera" or "ect" instead of "et cetera" and "etc".

Don't forget 'ice tea' instead of 'iced tea'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: jaxsue on August 02, 2012, 08:55:56 PM
Hunnert, cousint, and acrosst.

Also, 'chimbly' and 'liberry'.

Also, I have known people who do not have a 'snack'.  They have a 'smack'.

Kill me now. :o
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on August 03, 2012, 01:16:42 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

I hate this, but is it legitimate US vs UK practice?   We do handle verbs differently - it's common in the UK to have 'leant', 'learnt', 'spelt', 'dreamt' etc, as the past tense of those verbs, although the 'leaned', 'learned', 'spelled' and 'dreamed' forms are gaining ground.

The one that really has my teeth grinding is the use of 'shined' as the past tense of shine.  In the UK at least, it's 'shone'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: jaxsue on August 03, 2012, 07:10:08 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

That one bothers me a lot, too.  >:(
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: jaxsue on August 03, 2012, 07:13:19 AM
So many of my language pet peeves have been mentioned already. One has not, so here it is: lightening vs. lightning. That streak of light in the sky during a big storm is lightning, not lightening!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on August 03, 2012, 07:26:49 AM
I've been trying to break myself of the customary phrasing (at least around here) of referring to the weather in terms of 'it's supposed* to...' when I mean 'it's forecasted to...' because it's not really supposed to do anything!

* And I want full credit for not using 'suppose' in this thread despite the temptation to irk others who are as irritated by that error as I am!   >:D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on August 03, 2012, 08:56:36 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

I hate this, but is it legitimate US vs UK practice?   We do handle verbs differently - it's common in the UK to have 'leant', 'learnt', 'spelt', 'dreamt' etc, as the past tense of those verbs, although the 'leaned', 'learned', 'spelled' and 'dreamed' forms are gaining ground.

The one that really has my teeth grinding is the use of 'shined' as the past tense of shine.  In the UK at least, it's 'shone'.

It can be correct in a few constructions, I believe. For example, "I shined the silver before the guests arrived".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on August 03, 2012, 09:22:25 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

I hate this, but is it legitimate US vs UK practice?   We do handle verbs differently - it's common in the UK to have 'leant', 'learnt', 'spelt', 'dreamt' etc, as the past tense of those verbs, although the 'leaned', 'learned', 'spelled' and 'dreamed' forms are gaining ground.

The one that really has my teeth grinding is the use of 'shined' as the past tense of shine.  In the UK at least, it's 'shone'.

It can be correct in a few constructions, I believe. For example, "I shined the silver before the guests arrived".

I'd never shine silver - I'd polish it!  Another transatlantic difference, I think. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 03, 2012, 09:35:34 AM
I saw this last night on an American English professor's blog:

...to all my critiques out there...

Please, please...critics are people, they critique others   

this set my hair ablaze agghhh
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on August 03, 2012, 10:00:32 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

I hate this, but is it legitimate US vs UK practice?   We do handle verbs differently - it's common in the UK to have 'leant', 'learnt', 'spelt', 'dreamt' etc, as the past tense of those verbs, although the 'leaned', 'learned', 'spelled' and 'dreamed' forms are gaining ground.

The one that really has my teeth grinding is the use of 'shined' as the past tense of shine.  In the UK at least, it's 'shone'.

It can be correct in a few constructions, I believe. For example, "I shined the silver before the guests arrived".

I'd never shine silver - I'd polish it!  Another transatlantic difference, I think.

I've only really seen people in the U.S. say "polished" for silver, too.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on August 03, 2012, 10:27:09 AM
A pet peeve of mine is "drug" when used as the past tense of drag.

I hate this, but is it legitimate US vs UK practice?   We do handle verbs differently - it's common in the UK to have 'leant', 'learnt', 'spelt', 'dreamt' etc, as the past tense of those verbs, although the 'leaned', 'learned', 'spelled' and 'dreamed' forms are gaining ground.

The one that really has my teeth grinding is the use of 'shined' as the past tense of shine.  In the UK at least, it's 'shone'.

It can be correct in a few constructions, I believe. For example, "I shined the silver before the guests arrived".

I'd never shine silver - I'd polish it!  Another transatlantic difference, I think.

I've only really seen people in the U.S. say "polished" for silver, too.

I've just realize I use "shined" with a direct object and "shone" without. (I'm in the US.)

I shined my shoes.
The sun shone all day.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on August 03, 2012, 01:13:46 PM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".


Yes! Yes! The "handicap" parking space and the "ice" tea! Arggh!

Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on August 03, 2012, 01:26:15 PM
Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?


Well, no less an authority than Dickens used that one.

Mr and Mrs Veneering were bran-new people in a bran-new house in a
bran-new quarter of London. Everything about the Veneerings was spick
and span new. All their furniture was new, all their friends were new,
all their servants were new, their plate was new, their carriage was
new, their harness was new, their horses were new, their pictures
were new, they themselves were new, they were as newly married as was
lawfully compatible with their having a bran-new baby, and if they had
set up a great-grandfather, he would have come home in matting from the
Pantechnicon, without a scratch upon him, French polished to the crown
of his head.


Also this: http://www.monacolange.com/_blog/Brand_Matters/post/Brand_new_or_Bran_new/
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on August 03, 2012, 04:21:47 PM
Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?


Well, no less an authority than Dickens used that one.

Mr and Mrs Veneering were bran-new people in a bran-new house in a
bran-new quarter of London. Everything about the Veneerings was spick
and span new. All their furniture was new, all their friends were new,
all their servants were new, their plate was new, their carriage was
new, their harness was new, their horses were new, their pictures
were new, they themselves were new, they were as newly married as was
lawfully compatible with their having a bran-new baby, and if they had
set up a great-grandfather, he would have come home in matting from the
Pantechnicon, without a scratch upon him, French polished to the crown
of his head.


Also this: http://www.monacolange.com/_blog/Brand_Matters/post/Brand_new_or_Bran_new/

This one seems to be saying that "bran new" came about due to the typical laziness people have when it comes to language: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/mailbag-friday-brand-new-or-bran-new/
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 05, 2012, 07:11:22 PM
I can't stand it when people type/write "back-peddle" instead of the correct "back-pedal," as in "You can't back-peddle now - you made that nasty statement loud and clear."

You normally pedal (e.g., a bike) to move forward; if you "back-pedal," you're pedaling in reverse, or moving backward.  In the context of making a statement, you back-pedal to attempt to retract or reverse what you said previously.

If you "peddle," you're selling something.  Not the same thing!   >:(
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 05, 2012, 07:48:37 PM
Oh, and "We haven't spoke." 

"Spoken," I beg you ....   :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 05, 2012, 08:09:39 PM
To be fair, I should 'fess up that I'm one of those who misused "comprise/comprised" for years (blush). 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 05, 2012, 09:15:12 PM
Oh, and "We haven't spoke." 

"Spoken," I beg you ....   :)

"I haven't tooken it yet."


Also, not sure if I mentioned it yet, but "addicting" drives me up the wall.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 05, 2012, 09:33:22 PM
Sometimes, I think Facebook's greatest crime is turning a perfectly good noun, "friend," into a verb.  (Shudder.)

OK - maybe not its greatest crime.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: White Dragon on August 06, 2012, 11:45:21 AM
I confess that I sometimes run afoul if renumeration and remuneration, but I am frustrated when I do so!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giraffe, Esq on August 09, 2012, 12:15:26 PM
{snip}
Also, not sure if I mentioned it yet, but "addicting" drives me up the wall.

In what context?  And why?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 09, 2012, 01:11:55 PM
{snip}
Also, not sure if I mentioned it yet, but "addicting" drives me up the wall.

In what context?  And why?

"This game is so addicting."  No it's not, it's addictive.  It's not technically incorrect, it just grates on my ears.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on August 12, 2012, 12:03:46 PM
I know I'm late but I've been away... I'm bewildered by one I see a lot (not alot  ;)) on this site: Deity (noun), a god or goddess, or the state of being divine.

Diety (adjective, I suppose!), like a diet.

[runs away]
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on August 12, 2012, 02:49:44 PM
Reign/rein.  You reign/rule over your subjects.  You tug back on the reins to slow or stop a horse.

If you are reining in your desire to not eat chocolate that makes sense.  You are holding back on your desire to eat chocolate. 

I guess reigning in (maybe "over" would work better than "in" here) your desire to not eat chocolate could mean you are over ruling your desire to not eat chocolate but it would be the wrong word because that would mean you _were_ going to eat the sweet bits of goodness. LOL

(now I want some chocolate!)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on August 12, 2012, 03:17:26 PM
I know I'm late but I've been away... I'm bewildered by one I see a lot (not alot  ;)) on this site: Deity (noun), a god or goddess, or the state of being divine.

Diety (adjective, I suppose!), like a diet.

[runs away]

Perhaps the "i before e" rule makes people automatically type ie, not ei.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on August 12, 2012, 03:20:52 PM
Saw this one today and cringed: kind've.

It's "kind of," or even the colloquial "kinda," but not "kind've."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 12, 2012, 03:34:34 PM
You're "a part" of something, not "apart" of it.  Grrrrr. 

The internal contradiction of this particular error amuses me, though - using a term of division/separation when the speaker or writer means to indicate inclusion. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 12, 2012, 05:42:13 PM
Saw this one today and cringed: kind've.

It's "kind of," or even the colloquial "kinda," but not "kind've."

This is, to me, just like "John and I" when it should be "John and me".  People are so focused on trying to be right that they over apply it to everything and fail. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: artk2002 on August 12, 2012, 06:19:36 PM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".


Yes! Yes! The "handicap" parking space and the "ice" tea! Arggh!

Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?

One that got to me just the other day: "Shave Ice". An entire industry has lost their 'd'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 12, 2012, 06:50:48 PM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".


Yes! Yes! The "handicap" parking space and the "ice" tea! Arggh!

Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?

One that got to me just the other day: "Shave Ice". An entire industry has lost their 'd'.
That one is Hawaiian Pidgin.  Parts of the country that see snow called that treat 'snowballs', but when it was introduced to Hawaii, someone decided that using the more familiar word 'ice' would mo' betta.  Pidgin rarely worries about grammatical correctness. ;)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 13, 2012, 08:59:14 AM
Saw this one today and cringed: kind've.

It's "kind of," or even the colloquial "kinda," but not "kind've."

This is, to me, just like "John and I" when it should be "John and me".  People are so focused on trying to be right that they over apply it to everything and fail.

For some reason, many people don't like to use 'me'. 

'John and I were invited  to the Wedding' is correct

'The Wedding invitation was sent to John and me' is correct.

If you can substitute 'we' for 'John and X',  'I' is correct. 

If you can substitute 'us', 'me' is correct. 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on August 13, 2012, 11:02:59 AM
I was taught to remove one person and see how it sounded.

"John and I were invited to the wedding" becomes "I was invited to the wedding".  So "I" is correct.
"John and me were invited to the wedding" becomes "Me was invited to the wedding."  So "me" is incorrect.

"The wedding invitation was sent to John and me" becomes "The wedding invitation was sent to me".  Correct!
"The wedding invitation was sent to John and I" becomes "The wedding invitation was sent to I". 
Incorrect!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 13, 2012, 11:33:06 AM
I was taught to remove one person and see how it sounded.

"John and I were invited to the wedding" becomes "I was invited to the wedding".  So "I" is correct.
"John and me were invited to the wedding" becomes "Me was invited to the wedding."  So "me" is incorrect.

"The wedding invitation was sent to John and me" becomes "The wedding invitation was sent to me".  Correct!
"The wedding invitation was sent to John and I" becomes "The wedding invitation was sent to I". 
Incorrect!

This is also how I was taught, plus "me" is in the predicate and "I" is in the subject.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 13, 2012, 02:15:43 PM
Me too. (Although to be grammatically correct, it should be "I, also!"  But apparently teachers do such a good job of squelching "Me and John went to the store" that people ever after say "John and I" even when it should be "John and me."  DH tried to argue that one with me at one point, that it should always be "John and I" because it was a plural. ???
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 14, 2012, 09:52:45 AM
There's also the urge to write things in an affected way because it sounds more refined.

The Rockefeller family has been plagued by this for generations.  People thought that the pronunciation sounded lower class.  As a result, letters to them were often addressed to the 'Rockerfellow' family. That makes them sound like a group in 1960s London.

A similar thing happened to the term 'tuxedo'.  In the 19th century, an enclave of wealthy people developed on the New York -- New Jersey border around a picturesque area known to the local people as Duck Cedar Pond. 

To the new people building their mansions the term sounded uneducated.  Thus, 'Duck Cedar' became 'Tuxedo'.  If this hadn't happened most men would be wearing Duck Cedars to their Weddings. 

 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on August 14, 2012, 02:26:06 PM
I know I'm late but I've been away... I'm bewildered by one I see a lot (not alot  ;)) on this site: Deity (noun), a god or goddess, or the state of being divine.

Diety (adjective, I suppose!), like a diet.

[runs away]

Perhaps the "i before e" rule makes people automatically type ie, not ei.

Or maybe because they think it is pronounced "diii-ity" (long I) instead of "dee-itty" (long E)?  It's one of those words you may have only read and never heard or heard but didn't make the connection due to the spelling being different than what one would expect. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=601674
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on August 14, 2012, 02:45:52 PM
My friend refers to her religious leader as "Pasture Jones".

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on August 14, 2012, 03:35:27 PM
Me too. (Although to be grammatically correct, it should be "I, also!"  But apparently teachers do such a good job of squelching "Me and John went to the store" that people ever after say "John and I" even when it should be "John and me."  DH tried to argue that one with me at one point, that it should always be "John and I" because it was a plural. ???

Am I the only one who, as a child listening to adults correct other kids' grammar, tired of hearing 'Just how mean is John?'  (me and => me an' => mean)

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bopper on August 14, 2012, 04:10:09 PM
Sorry if anyone already posted this...a little fun for you all.

http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling  (see the bottom of that page for more grammar comics)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 14, 2012, 05:19:56 PM
Me too. (Although to be grammatically correct, it should be "I, also!"  But apparently teachers do such a good job of squelching "Me and John went to the store" that people ever after say "John and I" even when it should be "John and me."  DH tried to argue that one with me at one point, that it should always be "John and I" because it was a plural. ???

Am I the only one who, as a child listening to adults correct other kids' grammar, tired of hearing 'Just how mean is John?'  (me and => me an' => mean)

That just made me think about another one that drives nuts me. I detest when people say real and actually mean really.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on August 14, 2012, 08:14:49 PM
It was drummed into my head in school that I should never use very, because it limits a vocabulary. I very seldom ( >:D) break that rule, but I always twitch when I see "very unique." ARGH! Bad! No!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shoo on August 14, 2012, 09:18:37 PM
Me:  How are you?

Other person:  I'm fine. Yourself?


GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on August 15, 2012, 02:59:37 AM
My friend refers to her religious leader as "Pasture Jones".

That's kind of appropriate, perhaps -- does his best to lead his flock into green pastures...?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on August 15, 2012, 08:56:00 AM
My friend refers to her religious leader as "Pasture Jones".

That's kind of appropriate, perhaps -- does his best to lead his flock into green pastures...?

Heehee - I do have to fight the urge to say "moooo" when she talks about him.   ;D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on August 15, 2012, 09:09:44 AM
Oh, another one - "tenant" instead of "tenet."  Your philosophy/religion doesn't have renters.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on August 15, 2012, 10:05:04 AM
children need to know that people aren't judged by how they spell".

I know this was incredibly far back in the thread, but after reading through all 7 pages, my jaw is still hanging over the bolded phrase. Please tell me that teacher is no longer manipulating the malleable minds of our young.

"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell Tuesday, even if  he doesn't spell it right. But spelling isn't everything" (Rabbit in" The House at Pooh Corner)

Perhaps the teacher was a fan of A.A.Milne?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on August 15, 2012, 10:11:51 AM
I once read a comment by someone who said "If I would have told you what went on, you wouldn't have believed me"

Surely all they needed to say was "If I told you", or even "Had I told you, you would not believe me."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on August 15, 2012, 10:24:02 AM
I once read a comment by someone who said "If I would have told you what went on, you wouldn't have believed me"

Surely all they needed to say was "If I told you", or even "Had I told you, you would not believe me."

Or "If I told you what happened, you wouldn't believe me."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Dr. F. on August 15, 2012, 10:56:01 AM
I mourn the loss of the adjectival past participle.  Now I see "can food" instead of "canned food" regularly in grocery stores, and even in one local library, "unshelf books" instead of "unshelved books".


Yes! Yes! The "handicap" parking space and the "ice" tea! Arggh!

Another one I see a lot: "bran-new." Because everyone knows that nothing can be newer than bran?

One that got to me just the other day: "Shave Ice". An entire industry has lost their 'd'.

The one that kills me is "old-fashion." NO. "old fashionED." You see this on signs throughout the midwest and southeast.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on August 15, 2012, 03:16:47 PM
I didn't re-read the whole thread to see if this had been addressed, but I don't recall it.

I do an inner eyeroll when people start a statement with 'Honestly,...' or 'To tell the truth,...'  Do you lie otherwise?  Next time, try 'Frankly,...' or 'To be blunt...'  Please?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 15, 2012, 03:23:34 PM
I didn't re-read the whole thread to see if this had been addressed, but I don't recall it.

I do an inner eyeroll when people start a statement with 'Honestly,...' or 'To tell the truth,...'  Do you lie otherwise?  Next time, try 'Frankly,...' or 'To be blunt...'  Please?

It's not necessarily that they lie, but they could not tell the whole truth each and every time.  Like you said, blunt, but it's more honest than what they would normally be.  Doesn't mean it doesn't bother you, though.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on August 15, 2012, 03:23:56 PM
I didn't re-read the whole thread to see if this had been addressed, but I don't recall it.

I do an inner eyeroll when people start a statement with 'Honestly,...' or 'To tell the truth,...'  Do you lie otherwise?  Next time, try 'Frankly,...' or 'To be blunt...'  Please?

Not lie, necessarily, but "honestly . . ." usually seems to mean "I am choosing to say this bluntly instead of sugar-coating it with little white lies and lies of omission."  So I get what you're saying  :P but I don't think they're meaningless.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on August 16, 2012, 11:07:52 AM
I heard someone on TV last night saying that supplies of a certain product had to be "Aired in" from abroad. I would have said they'd had to be "Flown" in from abroad.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 16, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
I know someone who somehow twisted being told never to say "I’m good" in favor of "I’m well" to essentially never use the word good.

So, I’ll ask them their opinion on how something looks (like a new project, etc), and they respond with "It looks well."  My quilt looks to be in good health?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Trogdor on August 16, 2012, 12:20:15 PM
A pet peeve of mine: Confusing than and then. One is comparative, the other is consecutive.

I see "I'm taller then her" and "He got out of the car, than I did" all the time.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on August 16, 2012, 12:46:40 PM
A pet peeve of mine: Confusing than and then. One is comparative, the other is consecutive.

I see "I'm taller then her" and "He got out of the car, than I did" all the time.

TROGDOR!!!!! (sorry, it came unbidden! :-[ )

I hate that, too.  I have also heard it said incorrectly, which only makes it worse for me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 17, 2012, 09:04:54 AM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 17, 2012, 03:31:32 PM
Overheard one last night that made me get stabby: "I and her don't get along."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on August 21, 2012, 08:25:26 AM
In the vast majority of cases, it's "simple," not "simplistic." I just saw that on another thread. "I used to think X was complicated, then I Googled it and it's so simplistic, I can't wait to try it."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 21, 2012, 09:04:35 AM
'Simplistic' isn't positive. 

I posted on another thread here about a pamphlet reviewing children's books.  The author consistently used 'simplistic' when 'simple' would have been correct. 

Some people think that adding a syllable or two makes their writing sound more sophisticated.  It doesn't. 

Another thing that irritates me is the phrase, 'a couple things' for 'several'.  'A couple OF things' is fine.


Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on August 21, 2012, 03:27:18 PM
"It's in our/their DNA"--referring to a principle, practice, or custom of a company or team, or something they are committed to.
 "At XYZ Company, we care about quality. It's in our DNA."
"Our team gives 110%. It's in our DNA."
"The user experience is my highest priority--it's in my DNA!"

No. Brown eyes are in your DNA. Blood type is in your DNA. You are not responsible for them, and they do not reflect positively or negatively on you--they just are. A concern for customer service is something you can choose to have and to act on.

This one is really common where I work.  :P 
I wonder if anyone would say it at, say, a biotech company?  ;)

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 21, 2012, 03:32:52 PM
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d rather see apostrophe use die out than see another apostrophe carelessly plunged into a plural.

In the mean time, I cope by inserting attributes or words after the plural to make it be a possessive.

"All CD’s on sale!" becomes "All CD’s puppies on sale!" (not that it makes any more sense, but at least it is closer to correct grammar!)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on August 21, 2012, 04:44:48 PM
"It's in our/their DNA"--referring to a principle, practice, or custom of a company or team, or something they are committed to.
 "At XYZ Company, we care about quality. It's in our DNA."
"Our team gives 110%. It's in our DNA."
"The user experience is my highest priority--it's in my DNA!"

No. Brown eyes are in your DNA. Blood type is in your DNA. You are not responsible for them, and they do not reflect positively or negatively on you--they just are. A concern for customer service is something you can choose to have and to act on.

This one is really common where I work.  :P 
I wonder if anyone would say it at, say, a biotech company?  ;)

DH works for a lab which does gene sequencing.  The answer is no, you don't hear this, but you do hear a lot of people gripe about it  :P
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on August 25, 2012, 04:56:09 AM
I found these on LiveJournal this morning and thought I'd share:



(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y88/AnnaOrr/Clipboard.png)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: CakeEater on August 25, 2012, 11:38:02 PM
'Simplistic' isn't positive. 

I posted on another thread here about a pamphlet reviewing children's books.  The author consistently used 'simplistic' when 'simple' would have been correct. 

Some people think that adding a syllable or two makes their writing sound more sophisticated.  It doesn't. 

Another thing that irritates me is the phrase, 'a couple things' for 'several'.  'A couple OF things' is fine.

Is the bolded a regional thing in the US? I read a series of books, which I really liked, but the characters were always grabbing a 'couple beers' or grilling a 'couple steaks' or making a 'couple phone calls'. I chose not to start on another series of that author's because it made my eyes sore.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 26, 2012, 09:01:14 AM
I don't know if it's regional but it's getting more and more common in news reports and published non-fiction.  It's one thing to see it in novels.  It's quite another to find it in magazines and newspapers. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: CakeEater on August 27, 2012, 05:13:43 AM
I don't know if it's regional but it's getting more and more common in news reports and published non-fiction.  It's one thing to see it in novels.  It's quite another to find it in magazines and newspapers.

Very true.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: crella on August 27, 2012, 05:50:00 AM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)


Yes, my Gods where did 'wah-la' come from?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on August 27, 2012, 07:03:04 AM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)


Yes, my Gods where did 'wah-la' come from?

Back in the day people wrote the above just to see how many people would immediately email in a correction (back when all there was were email lists) and it carried over to forums.  Nowadays? I don't know if people are still being silly or if they don't know the difference.

 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253486
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 27, 2012, 07:31:11 AM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)


Yes, my Gods where did 'wah-la' come from?

Back in the day people wrote the above just to see how many people would immediately email in a correction (back when all there was were email lists) and it carried over to forums.  Nowadays? I don't know if people are still being silly or if they don't know the difference.

 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253486

I see it on blogs a lot in contexts where I truly believe the authors don’t know the difference.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 27, 2012, 08:34:56 AM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)


Yes, my Gods where did 'wah-la' come from?

Back in the day people wrote the above just to see how many people would immediately email in a correction (back when all there was were email lists) and it carried over to forums.  Nowadays? I don't know if people are still being silly or if they don't know the difference.

 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253486

I see it on blogs a lot in contexts where I truly believe the authors don’t know the difference.
Since I don't read many blogs, I hear it instead of seeing it.   Usually pronounce 'walla', with the emphasis on the first syllable.  Certain people on TV use it all.the.time. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: crella on August 28, 2012, 06:32:58 PM
It’s voilà.

Not wah-la. Not walla. Not viola.

Voilà.

I can excuse voila, if accents are beyond your technical capability.

(Or, when in doubt, just use English)


Yes, my Gods where did 'wah-la' come from?

Back in the day people wrote the above just to see how many people would immediately email in a correction (back when all there was were email lists) and it carried over to forums.  Nowadays? I don't know if people are still being silly or if they don't know the difference.

 http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=253486


I see. I haven't heard it spoken yet, but have seen it in print, on FB in one of those 'I know who will post this and who won't'  messages.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on August 28, 2012, 07:09:24 PM
I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I keep coming across this one and it's driving me INSANE.

"discusting".

Between this one and "alot", my eye twitches. In a disgusting manner. A LOT.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Amava on August 28, 2012, 07:23:06 PM
I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I keep coming across this one and it's driving me INSANE.

"discusting".

Between this one and "alot", my eye twitches. In a disgusting manner. A LOT.

But but but... what do you have against the alot?  :'(  He's so cute!
I believe he's been posted before, but here he is again:

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TTPQCPA6I/AAAAAAAACwA/ZHZH-Bi8OmI/s400/ALOT2.png)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on August 28, 2012, 07:27:16 PM
I saw that blog post, Amava, and thought it was hilarious.

Oh, and another one that I didn't see posted on here:

"Where you at?'

I don't know why people say this seemingly all the time now, but it drives me bonkers.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 29, 2012, 08:43:22 AM
I notice this one in speech more than writing (and am guilty of it myself, when I’m not thinking things out before I say them):

"So-and-so and I’s belonging" instead of "So-and-so’s and my belonging". Every time I realize I’ve said it I know I wince, but it just slips out out of habit.

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 29, 2012, 12:14:48 PM
I notice this one in speech more than writing (and am guilty of it myself, when I’m not thinking things out before I say them):

"So-and-so and I’s belonging" instead of "So-and-so’s and my belonging". Every time I realize I’ve said it I know I wince, but it just slips out out of habit.
"Our belonging" works even better!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 29, 2012, 12:20:56 PM
I notice this one in speech more than writing (and am guilty of it myself, when I’m not thinking things out before I say them):

"So-and-so and I’s belonging" instead of "So-and-so’s and my belonging". Every time I realize I’ve said it I know I wince, but it just slips out out of habit.
"Our belonging" works even better!

There are occasions when you want to clarify whose it is, rather than sounding like you could be using the "royal our", so to speak.

For instance, "Please come to my twin’s and my birthday party" sounds a bit different than "Please come to our birthday party", depending on who you are speaking with (and their familiarity with said twin, etc).
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on August 29, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
I'm at home, waiting for a delivery.  Turned on TV to pass the time a bit and heard my all-time most annoying TV show announcement:  Star Track. 

Yep, the commercial for the upcoming show was (paraphrased) as follows:  Coming up next starring William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy is the classic Star Track.

Grrr.  Trek means journey!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on August 29, 2012, 03:04:13 PM
I think this is more of a spelling issue than a grammar one - but gurl instead of girl.   

I know not everyone is a brilliant speller, but really, girl is not a hard one to learn!

If you didn't know how to spell a lot in my freshman class, you certainly did by the time you got out.  If you spelled it alot you were assigned 100 sentences using it correctly.  Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

She wrote              A                                        Lot     on the chalkboard (just like that) and if you got it wrong, Lord help you because you were going to be busy.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 29, 2012, 03:13:50 PM
I think this is more of a spelling issue than a grammar one - but gurl instead of girl.   

I know not everyone is a brilliant speller, but really, girl is not a hard one to learn!

If you didn't know how to spell a lot in my freshman class, you certainly did by the time you got out.  If you spelled it alot you were assigned 100 sentences using it correctly.  Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

She wrote              A                                        Lot     on the chalkboard (just like that) and if you got it wrong, Lord help you because you were going to be busy.

My freshman English teacher was a fan of "Separate. It has 'a rat' in it. And you’d want to separate a rat from you, right?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on August 29, 2012, 05:29:48 PM
I've seen these being misused on here more than once: presumptuous is not the same as presumptive.

Presumptive means based on a reasonable belief about what is likely to be the case. Hence the heir presumptive is the person likely to inherit a position or honour, but who may be supplanted by the birth of another person with a better claim. If Lord Thing has no children, his brother is the heir presumptive. If Lord Thing dies childless, the brother gets the title. If Lord Thing marries and has a son (we won't go into titles passing in the female line, it's too difficult), that son is the heir apparent - he definitely gets the title if he lives, and the brother doesn't.

Presumptive has nothing to do with good manners.

Presumptuous means behaving in a way you have no right to do and which may seem rude. If I ask you about your medical history, scrabble habits, and financial status, I'm presumptuous, not presumptive.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 29, 2012, 06:50:37 PM
Regarding 'gurls' vs. 'girl's', is it possible that the posters went one step away from 'grrls'?

That was a term used by some feminists to indicate that they were not polite, little shrinking violets.

Think about the 'Guerilla Girls' and how they seek to bring attention to women artists. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on August 29, 2012, 07:47:47 PM
I think this is more of a spelling issue than a grammar one - but gurl instead of girl.   

I know not everyone is a brilliant speller, but really, girl is not a hard one to learn!


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1914111 has a nice explanation and an interesting coincidence "PS From the mighty Webster: "Girl" comes from the old English "girle", that was also spelled "gerle" and "gurle""

(Some of the posts are in Italian but not all.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 29, 2012, 08:40:05 PM
I think this is more of a spelling issue than a grammar one - but gurl instead of girl.   

I know not everyone is a brilliant speller, but really, girl is not a hard one to learn!


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1914111 has a nice explanation and an interesting coincidence "PS From the mighty Webster: "Girl" comes from the old English "girle", that was also spelled "gerle" and "gurle""

(Some of the posts are in Italian but not all.)
And was originally a term used for all young people, female AND male!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: AfleetAlex on August 30, 2012, 01:53:20 PM
A spelling one from the fair: carmel apples. No, no, no, it's CARAMEL. Carmel is a place.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 31, 2012, 08:49:03 AM
A spelling one from the fair: carmel apples. No, no, no, it's CARAMEL. Carmel is a place.  :D

Very true, however here, caramel is usually pronounced 'CAR-mel'.  It's still a spelling error but it's a somewhat understandable one.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: AfleetAlex on August 31, 2012, 10:52:40 AM
Very true, and I do say it carmel instead of cara-mel. But the spelling kinda makes me wince, just a little.  ;D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on August 31, 2012, 10:59:18 AM
Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

My freshman English teacher was a fan of "Separate. It has 'a rat' in it. And you’d want to separate a rat from you, right?"
Depends -- some people have pet rats, and love them dearly  :) ...

Another remembering-device for "separate" which I've come across, goes: "Se and Rate were fighting; their Pa came in and separated them." (That, for me, is one of the kind re which it would seem simpler just to remember the information itself; but people's mileages vary.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on August 31, 2012, 11:16:42 AM
Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

My freshman English teacher was a fan of "Separate. It has 'a rat' in it. And you’d want to separate a rat from you, right?"
Depends -- some people have pet rats, and love them dearly  :) ...

Another remembering-device for "separate" which I've come across, goes: "Se and Rate were fighting; their Pa came in and separated them." (That, for me, is one of the kind re which it would seem simpler just to remember the information itself; but people's mileages vary.)

I agree. But I know some things like that do work, or you end up remembering them as they’re crammed into your head.

For instance, I can’t write onomatopoeia without my brain saying "O, no ma! To poe I a!" because said English teacher also drilled that into us.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on August 31, 2012, 12:03:01 PM
For sure -- different mnemonics suit different people.

I remember reading a book of memoirs by the novelist Anthony Burgess, one of whose hobbies was learning foreign languages. He mentioned that in the course of doing same, he often thought up mnemonics which were so complicated / just plain silly, that he'd be embarrassed to tell them to anyone else. One which he did vouchsafe, was: in the course of a spell of employment in Malaysia, he set about learning Malay. A word in that language is "bermastautin", meaning to settle, or take up residence, in a place. Burgess's memory-aid for this, was: he thought of a Scotsman, with a fondness for the "stout" variety of beer, domiciled out east. This imaginary character walks into a house and takes possession of it, doing all the territory-marking stuff; then sinks into an armchair and calls to his native "bearer": "Ah'm settled here; bear ma stout in".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on August 31, 2012, 05:26:28 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on August 31, 2012, 07:00:10 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on August 31, 2012, 07:09:04 PM
Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

My freshman English teacher was a fan of "Separate. It has 'a rat' in it. And you’d want to separate a rat from you, right?"
Depends -- some people have pet rats, and love them dearly  :) ...

Another remembering-device for "separate" which I've come across, goes: "Se and Rate were fighting; their Pa came in and separated them." (That, for me, is one of the kind re which it would seem simpler just to remember the information itself; but people's mileages vary.)

I've liked "Sep's wife saw a rat and yelled, 'Sep!  A rat!  Eeeeeee!'"
 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on August 31, 2012, 08:32:47 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

In NYC, temperature is us usually pronounced as 'TEM-per-chur'.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on September 01, 2012, 07:52:42 AM
Pronunciation gets me, too.  Too many examples to list.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: crella on September 02, 2012, 07:32:08 PM
'A large amount of people' is really common but bugs me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 05, 2012, 07:13:52 AM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on September 05, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
Two of my real biggies: "He gots a apple." I've stomped on my kids and grandkids any time I hear one or the other.  My girls were quick to understand, but the grandsons were much more stubborn about it.

We're still working on when one uses "Bob and I" vs. "Bob and me."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on September 05, 2012, 12:07:34 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

YES!!!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on September 05, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
Two of my real biggies: "He gots a apple." I've stomped on my kids and grandkids any time I hear one or the other.  My girls were quick to understand, but the grandsons were much more stubborn about it.

We're still working on when one uses "Bob and I" vs. "Bob and me."

I’ve lost count of the times we’ve corrected our 7 year old nephew from saying "Her wants the doll" or "Her wants to go get pizza with us too" when referencing his sister (or a woman). "She" just won’t sink in. I hope maybe his new teacher can get the point across.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on September 05, 2012, 12:36:50 PM
I saw this right here on Ehell: "Your aloud to (do that)."

Come on, people! It's not that hard!!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on September 05, 2012, 02:27:22 PM
I am stunned by the many misspellings I see on public forums (here included). 

If you can't spell, please look it up and don't embarrass yourself and show everyone your ignorance.

Today I saw slauter for slaughter on Facebook, how embarrassing to publicly announce that you don't know how to spell. 

Geez, at least we have spell check right here on eHell, how bad does it look when you misspell because you didn't even utilize spell check?  Is it becoming a lost art to spell correctly??
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 05, 2012, 04:10:18 PM
To be fair, sometimes people have autocorrect on their phones, and it messes up what they were intending to say. And I know I've made a mistake or two on here when I thought I was free of spelling mistakes and I actually wasn't.  :-[
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 05, 2012, 04:13:49 PM
I am stunned by the many misspellings I see on public forums (here included). 

If you can't spell, please look it up and don't embarrass yourself and show everyone your ignorance.

Today I saw slauter for slaughter on Facebook, how embarrassing to publicly announce that you don't know how to spell. 

Geez, at least we have spell check right here on eHell, how bad does it look when you misspell because you didn't even utilize spell check?  Is it becoming a lost art to spell correctly??

However, in the example given... spell check would *not* catch "aloud", as it is actually a word.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 05, 2012, 04:14:42 PM
Separate was another favorite of my English professor's words - not seperate, aggh.

My freshman English teacher was a fan of "Separate. It has 'a rat' in it. And you’d want to separate a rat from you, right?"
Depends -- some people have pet rats, and love them dearly  :) ...

Another remembering-device for "separate" which I've come across, goes: "Se and Rate were fighting; their Pa came in and separated them." (That, for me, is one of the kind re which it would seem simpler just to remember the information itself; but people's mileages vary.)

I agree. But I know some things like that do work, or you end up remembering them as they’re crammed into your head.

For instance, I can’t write onomatopoeia without my brain saying "O, no ma! To poe I a!" because said English teacher also drilled that into us.

I've always been amused that onomatopoeia isn't spelled exactly as it sounds.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on September 06, 2012, 08:15:59 AM
A trend I see on some forums (fora?) is to put a space before all punctuation marks.

This , you would think , would make someone ' s post - what ' s the word I ' m looking for ? - oh , yeah, " hard to read . "
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on September 06, 2012, 10:35:34 AM
I’ve lost count of the times we’ve corrected our 7 year old nephew from saying "Her wants the doll" or "Her wants to go get pizza with us too" when referencing his sister (or a woman).

Is he from the West Country of England? I had cousins from Dorset who would say "Her's upstairs ( or wherever) if asked the whereabouts of their sisters.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on September 06, 2012, 02:47:42 PM
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 06, 2012, 02:55:25 PM
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

That's the most brilliantly worded ad I've ever read!  I... wait, this IS for proofreaders, right?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on September 06, 2012, 03:02:51 PM
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

That's the most brilliantly worded ad I've ever read!  I... wait, this IS for proofreaders, right?

That reminds me, actually - I went to a presentation a few years back aimed at writers.  The presenter announced at the beginning that there was at least one error in the handout and anyone who found it got a piece of candy.  Seemed like a great way to cover up having made a typo, to me!  Because you just know that if she hadn't said something, everyone would be asking questions afterwards like "Did you know you're missing a question mark on page three?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on September 06, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 06, 2012, 04:25:38 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on September 06, 2012, 04:52:24 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."

Instead they say PIN and ATM. Not "have your personal handy when using your automated," which is what "Tell me your social" sounds like to me. Couldn't we call it the SSN instead?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 06, 2012, 05:11:29 PM
I know this isn't technically a grammatical issue, but a pronunciation one. It still makes me crazy.

There is a woman on the Weather Channel that persistently pronounces "Gulf of Mexico" as "GOLF of Mexico". It makes me insane.

Golf is a game. The gulf is the place with lots of water.
The ones in the Baltimore area cannot say "temperature" with all four syllables.  They usually slur it to "temchur."

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

I don't mind "social" so much, I see it as the same as people refraining from saying "be sure to have you personal identification number handy when using your automated teller card."

Instead they say PIN and ATM. Not "have your personal handy when using your automated," which is what "Tell me your social" sounds like to me. Couldn't we call it the SSN instead?
Ideally, yeah... but you'd have to explain to most people what the SSN is.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on September 06, 2012, 06:50:09 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: GreenHall on September 06, 2012, 08:07:55 PM
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

...Alas, I must admit defeat...what is the proper usages there? Is it pore?

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 06, 2012, 08:10:32 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"? 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 06, 2012, 08:22:08 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 06, 2012, 08:26:20 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.

I mean "I am getting to" as in "I am getting to go to the concert."  In your example, it is perfectly okay.  However, I still disagree with the other two.  It is shorter, more succinct, and to me just sounds better to say "She wants to go to the play, but her father objects," and "You need to buy a ship, yes?"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 06, 2012, 08:32:17 PM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

Haha!  I sure as shirting hope not.

That brings me around to another grammar thing that bothers me.  "I am wanting" or "I am getting to" or "I am needing", et cetera.  Why can't you just say "I want" or "I get to" or "I need"?

Well, depending on what context, the -ing construction should be used. For example:

She is wanting to see the play, but her father objects.

I am getting to the station around noon.

You are needing to buy a ship, yes? (This one's a bit stilted, I admit)

In other words, it's talking about an ongoing action in the present. I wouldn't use them when it would sound better to say wants/gets/needs, but they have their place in the language.

I mean "I am getting to" as in "I am getting to go to the concert."  In your example, it is perfectly okay.  However, I still disagree with the other two.  It is shorter, more succinct, and to me just sounds better to say "She wants to go to the play, but her father objects," and "You need to buy a ship, yes?"

Yeah, that one just sounds silly.

I kinda see it as a present form of the imperfect tense - "was carrying" etc. By the first one, I meant to imply that her wanting was ongoing, not just a want at the moment. I also overthink these things a lot (as you can probably tell :-[), since a lot of this was drilled into me by my high school Latin teacher, who also "accidentally" helped us learn English grammar while in her classes.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 06, 2012, 10:09:24 PM
Haha, it's okay, I over think a lot of things.  It is pretty much the present form, but I still don't like it :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on September 07, 2012, 08:02:33 AM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

I’ve never seen this, though I don’t doubt it happens and would also bother me.

However, the words shirting, sheeting, and toweling all do have a place in the industry: describing the fabric goods before they are made into shirts, sheets, and towels. Of course, instead of panting, we have "bottom-weight".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on September 07, 2012, 09:06:26 AM
A bunch of attorneys who advertise on Houston radio are not licensed to do business in Texas. They are, instead, something that sounds like lysund. That second S sound disappears. AAAAAAAARRGH.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 07, 2012, 09:07:18 AM
It is not a pant.  A pant is only one part of it, hence why it is called a pair of pants.  A pant is just one side, so please do not insist on finding me a pant that fits my shape as I want a pair of them sewn together.  I realize this is big in the garment/fashion industry and that only bothers me more because it seems to me that it came about to make those saying it feel more refined.  This may not be the case, they may have always called it a pant but it is only leaking out of the fashion/garment world recently, but that is still how I interpret it.  I also just think it sounds stupid.

Meanwhile, the industry also adds unnecessary -ing to nouns. You don't buy sheets; you buy sheeting. Look at our lovely toweling. New, 100% cotton, no-iron shirting.

So when will they put the two trends together and offer us panting?  >:D

I’ve never seen this, though I don’t doubt it happens and would also bother me.

However, the words shirting, sheeting, and toweling all do have a place in the industry: describing the fabric goods before they are made into shirts, sheets, and towels. Of course, instead of panting, we have "bottom-weight".

That makes sense to me, but I have seen/heard them called that in the stores themselves, after they have been made into sheets, shirts, and towels.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on September 07, 2012, 09:10:06 AM
Twitching... my eye is twitching. Just saw this in an employment ad:

"Do you pour over the pages of the latest trend magazine?"

I dunno..... I guess I could pour my milk over it, if I really wanted to. :o

...Alas, I must admit defeat...what is the proper usages there? Is it pore?

Yes.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on September 07, 2012, 09:14:52 AM
I've been thinking about how 'pants' became 'pant'. So far, I've only seen it used for women's garments and there may be a reason.

A certain ensemble used to be called a 'pants suit'.  Lately, the term 'pantsuit' seems to be used.  It's even shown up in crosswords. 

Could that be how 'pants' lost its 's'?

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 07, 2012, 09:35:41 AM
I've been thinking about how 'pants' became 'pant'. So far, I've only seen it used for women's garments and there may be a reason.

A certain ensemble used to be called a 'pants suit'.  Lately, the term 'pantsuit' seems to be used.  It's even shown up in crosswords. 

Could that be how 'pants' lost its 's'?

Oooo, possibly, though I haven't seen pantsuit myself *says Dark Magdalena as she dons her pants suit for her interview*.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on September 07, 2012, 11:46:17 AM
I've been thinking about how 'pants' became 'pant'. So far, I've only seen it used for women's garments and there may be a reason.

A certain ensemble used to be called a 'pants suit'.  Lately, the term 'pantsuit' seems to be used.  It's even shown up in crosswords. 

Could that be how 'pants' lost its 's'?

Oooo, possibly, though I haven't seen pantsuit myself *says Dark Magdalena as she dons her pants suit for her interview*.

Good luck on the interview... and remember, if a customer asks you for a ride, it's probably a bad idea!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on September 07, 2012, 12:56:28 PM
I've been thinking about how 'pants' became 'pant'. So far, I've only seen it used for women's garments and there may be a reason.

A certain ensemble used to be called a 'pants suit'.  Lately, the term 'pantsuit' seems to be used.  It's even shown up in crosswords. 

Could that be how 'pants' lost its 's'?

Oooo, possibly, though I haven't seen pantsuit myself *says Dark Magdalena as she dons her pants suit for her interview*.

Good luck on the interview... and remember, if a customer asks you for a ride, it's probably a bad idea!

Haha! Thanks! There are actually signs where I live (14 corrections facilities in one county!) that say something like "Prison nearby, DO NOT pick up hitchhikers!"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on September 08, 2012, 05:06:13 PM
The present participle refers to ongoing action, but it isn't necessary to use it for *every* ongoing action. If you break it down, the participle (going) tends to be used for right now, temporary ongoing actions, while the plain verb (go) is more for permanent, regular, habitual actions. I'm going to Bob's house. I go to Bob's every Saturday.

I came across a press release recently promoting a "sneak peak" airing of a TV show. This was a professional publicist who should know better. I'm pretty sure there were no mountaintops in this show.  :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 08, 2012, 05:14:51 PM
A bed does not sleep. Someone may sleep on a bed, but it is impossible for an inanimate object to sleep. Therefore, catalogue, do not say that a bed "sleeps" two. Never mind the fact that you never say the two of what a bed sleeps - days? years? centuries?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on September 08, 2012, 07:36:48 PM
The present participle refers to ongoing action, but it isn't necessary to use it for *every* ongoing action. If you break it down, the participle (going) tends to be used for right now, temporary ongoing actions, while the plain verb (go) is more for permanent, regular, habitual actions. I'm going to Bob's house. I go to Bob's every Saturday.

I came across a press release recently promoting a "sneak peak" airing of a TV show. This was a professional publicist who should know better. I'm pretty sure there were no mountaintops in this show.  :)
Well, day-um!  I was looking forward to a mountaintop that tiptoed on and off.  Am I showing my age when I say that it sounds like something that would happen on the Muppet Show?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: MamaMootz on September 08, 2012, 11:23:39 PM
Another one that makes me gnash my teeth.

"Awe! How cute!" posted on Facebook.

AWE is something you feel when something amazing happens and you are rendered speechless.

AWW is the sound you make when something is cute.

She then followed that by the world famous "ALOT", which is what just made my brain explode.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Lovemykids on September 10, 2012, 11:55:41 AM

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

The above reminds me as well of the "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade," which is so often called the "Macy Day Parade."  I even once heard a TV announcer call it that.  Whaa?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 10, 2012, 11:59:33 AM

This one is coming up a lot lately because it's an election year in the U.S.: It's So-cial Se-cur-i-ty, people. Six syllables! But over and over again I hear politicians and commentators saying "Sosh-curty," or similar mushmouthed abominations. This isn't a regional pronunciation thing -- *everybody* does it. How hard is it to sound out a two-syllable word and a four-syllable word? And don't get me started on people who ask for your Social Security number with "What's your social?" or worse, "What's your sosh?"

The above reminds me as well of the "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade," which is so often called the "Macy Day Parade."  I even once heard a TV announcer call it that.  Whaa?

*facepalm*
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on September 10, 2012, 01:46:59 PM
I was behind a car today with a bumper sticker that read


I"M ONLY DRIVING THIS BECAUSE THE KID'S KEEP FALLING OFF THE BROOM


Doesn't punctuation MEAN anything anymore?  The worse part: the car's other bumper stickers made it clear the driver was a tattoo artist  :-[  Now I know which tattoo parlor to never go to!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on September 10, 2012, 01:55:37 PM
A bed does not sleep. Someone may sleep on a bed, but it is impossible for an inanimate object to sleep. Therefore, catalogue, do not say that a bed "sleeps" two. Never mind the fact that you never say the two of what a bed sleeps - days? years? centuries?


There's a brand of canned soup here (U.S.) that is advertised as being hearty and filling. The slogan is: "The soup that eats like a meal!" I can never hear/see the commercial without saying, "The soup that eats like a horse!" or "The soup that eats like a pig!"

Besides, why would you want to bring home soup that would eat *your* food?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 10, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
A bed does not sleep. Someone may sleep on a bed, but it is impossible for an inanimate object to sleep. Therefore, catalogue, do not say that a bed "sleeps" two. Never mind the fact that you never say the two of what a bed sleeps - days? years? centuries?


There's a brand of canned soup here (U.S.) that is advertised as being hearty and filling. The slogan is: "The soup that eats like a meal!" I can never hear/see the commercial without saying, "The soup that eats like a horse!" or "The soup that eats like a pig!"

Besides, why would you want to bring home soup that would eat *your* food?

Yes! I hate that commercial!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: violinp on September 10, 2012, 02:08:27 PM
Several years ago, there was a big fight somewhere locally. The newspaper reported that "someone was shot in the fracas." My dad said, "Well, that must've hurt. The fracas is a very sensitive part of the body."

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on September 10, 2012, 07:01:42 PM
Here's one I see all the time: ok.

NO SIR. Wrong wrong WRONG.

The word is "okay." If you wish to shorten it, you capitalize it: OK. There is no such word as "ok."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on September 10, 2012, 07:06:21 PM
Here's one I see all the time: ok.

NO SIR. Wrong wrong WRONG.

The word is "okay." If you wish to shorten it, you capitalize it: OK. There is no such word as "ok."

Hilarious! I hate "okay"!
It's only OK to use "OK," according to the Associated Press Stylebook.

It's an acronym or abbreviation for "oll korrect" (which is no longer OK to use, IMO). See Straight Dope for details: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/503/what-does-ok-stand-for (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/503/what-does-ok-stand-for)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on September 10, 2012, 07:13:27 PM
Most of the word-origin stories like that, sadly, are untrue. "To insure promptness,"* why the port side is called port, all those - nope.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/a-spitzer-tale-is-not-oll-korrect/

*This one should have been easy to call BS on. If you want something to happen, you take steps to ENSURE its happening. You INSURE your belongings with Allstate or Geico or whoever.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on September 10, 2012, 07:33:21 PM
Regardless, in this case, it was OK before it was okay.
The T.I.P.S. myth cracks me up each time, though.
 :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on September 12, 2012, 03:40:46 PM
Well this is why I post on this board...you learn something new everyday

I did not know ok was not OK!   So in the future if something is OK with me I will say so OK?

Here's the text version I hate: k           it just looks sarcastic and lonely

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 03, 2012, 07:46:09 PM
Here's what my current one boils down to:

WORDS MEAN THINGS.

I cannot stand it when people arbitrarily decide that a word means something everyone in the world knows it does not mean.

Bonus points for insisting that the rest of us adhere to the bizarre redefinition.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bansidhe on October 03, 2012, 10:33:58 PM
It makes me twitchy when people say "my Facebook," "her Facebook," "a Facebook," etc. Your Facebook what? Add "account," "page," "feed" - something.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 05, 2012, 09:22:38 AM
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 06, 2012, 07:52:04 AM
Kind of odd that the slangy form of 'yes' actually has one more letter, isn't it?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 06, 2012, 08:47:36 AM
Decimate. It's misused all the time. Ie the town was decimated in the bushfire. Means it was reduced by 1/10th. What they really mean was that the town was razed. Decimate does not mean destroyed.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on October 06, 2012, 09:33:11 AM
Decimate. It's misused all the time. Ie the town was decimated in the bushfire. Means it was reduced by 1/10th. What they really mean was that the town was razed. Decimate does not mean destroyed.

Decimated means, according to Merriam Webster:
   
1- Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.
2- Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): "plant viruses that can decimate yields".

Its origins is, as you said, to reduce by 10%. Or, better yet, to punish an army by killing 1 out of 10 men, drawn by lot. However, over the centuries, it has developed new meanings. Insisting that it can only have the original meaning is a little pedantic, in my view. Or else we need to admit that forging should only be used to describe something shaped by hammering or compression (so no deal can be forged), that glass can only refer to the material and not to items made of it (drinking glass, eye glasses), that a snowflake is only something that falls from the sky and not a very special person, etc.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on October 06, 2012, 10:07:43 AM
The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Unless you are a Sloane Ranger, and affecting an exaggerated accent.


P.S. Why does no one seem to use the word "Might" any more.? All I ever here is the word "May". I know it is a fine point about it's usage, but it does seem to be disappearing from the language.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Lovemykids on October 06, 2012, 07:42:23 PM
The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

See, now, I pronounce "yeah" with a short "a" sound as in "apple."  I pronounce "meh" with a short "e" sound as in "let."  (I don't use the spelling "ya" at all, except in something like, "see ya," and in that case, it's a short "u" sound, like in "duh.")
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shoo on October 06, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Yeah doesn't rhyme with meh.  Yeah has a short "a" sound and meh has a short "e" sound.  That's how I've always heard those words pronounced, anyway.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 07, 2012, 12:15:12 AM
The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

See, now, I pronounce "yeah" with a short "a" sound as in "apple."  I pronounce "meh" with a short "e" sound as in "let."  (I don't use the spelling "ya" at all, except in something like, "see ya," and in that case, it's a short "u" sound, like in "duh.")

This is also how I pronounce them.  scotcat60, is this maybe a regional difference?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bansidhe on October 07, 2012, 12:16:36 AM
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Yeah doesn't rhyme with meh.  Yeah has a short "a" sound and meh has a short "e" sound.  That's how I've always heard those words pronounced, anyway.

Until I came to this thread, I had no idea anyone pronounced "yeah" any way other than rhyming with "meh." This must be a regional difference. Never heard anyone in my neck of the woods pronounce it with a short "a" sound.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 07, 2012, 12:19:54 AM
Saw another one.

The short slangy form of "yes is "yeah." "Yeah" rhymes with "meh."

It is *not* "ya." "Ya" rhymes with "ha."

Yeah doesn't rhyme with meh.  Yeah has a short "a" sound and meh has a short "e" sound.  That's how I've always heard those words pronounced, anyway.

Until I came to this thread, I had no idea anyone pronounced "yeah" any way other than rhyming with "meh." This must be a regional difference. Never heard anyone in my neck of the woods pronounce it with a short "a" sound.

I had no idea anyone pronounced it rhyming with "meh".  That is so weird! (totally smiling and surprised that it is pronounced any other way).
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bansidhe on October 07, 2012, 12:42:36 AM
I'm going to be paying close attention to the way people say it from now on. I want to catch someone in the act.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 07, 2012, 12:52:36 AM
The funny thing is, I've never heard either!  What I hear (and say) is a single syllable word that other wise sounds like "yeh-ah".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on October 07, 2012, 08:18:02 AM
Decimate. It's misused all the time. Ie the town was decimated in the bushfire. Means it was reduced by 1/10th. What they really mean was that the town was razed. Decimate does not mean destroyed.

Decimated means, according to Merriam Webster:
   
1- Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of.
2- Drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): "plant viruses that can decimate yields".

Its origins is, as you said, to reduce by 10%. Or, better yet, to punish an army by killing 1 out of 10 men, drawn by lot. However, over the centuries, it has developed new meanings. Insisting that it can only have the original meaning is a little pedantic, in my view. Or else we need to admit that forging should only be used to describe something shaped by hammering or compression (so no deal can be forged), that glass can only refer to the material and not to items made of it (drinking glass, eye glasses), that a snowflake is only something that falls from the sky and not a very special person, etc.

Decimate irks me, too.  It's one thing to create new meanings and nuances for a word, and another thing to have a word misused until the misuse becomes accepted as an official definition. 

Sure, it happens to plenty of words, and I'm lucky if it's the biggest irritation in my day, but I do cringe when I hear it come out of a newscaster's mouth!   ;)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 07, 2012, 10:15:40 AM
~quote tree snipped~

Decimate irks me, too.  It's one thing to create new meanings and nuances for a word, and another thing to have a word misused until the misuse becomes accepted as an official definition. 

Sure, it happens to plenty of words, and I'm lucky if it's the biggest irritation in my day, but I do cringe when I hear it come out of a newscaster's mouth!   ;)

This reflects a major change in how we view language. 

Dictionaries are not prescriptive.  They were once, when they were the the repository of standard usage, standard spelling and grammatical rules: a tool to try and fix language, give words an absolute definition and usage that was considered the 'pure' and 'correct' use.  But language isn't something that can be fixed.  It's constantly evolving and changing, and now dictionaries seek to be descriptive instead - they show language as it's being used.  Definitions are slipping and changing.  Usage is slipping and changing.  Dictionaries reflect that.  Don't look to a dictionary for a definitive "this is right" ruling.  It will describe all the different usages for you, instead.

That's probably been the case for the last century, but we're all still hung up on a fixed definition, fixed spelling and fixed rules.  We like order and structure.  Language, being the slippery beast it is, doesn't much care for either as long as it gets the meaning across.

Like you, I prefer to use 'decimate' in the old, fixed way, but I acknowledge that the meaning has morphed and changed.  Other, similar, changes in words and usage will gradually take on the same level of 'rightness' as the old standard  - the misuse of 'lay' where 'lie' should be used ("Come and lay down beside me," coaxed John is a sentence that makes me shudder) is so widespread, that I don't believe there's a hope of reversing that trend.  It will still make me shudder, but eventually it will become the norm and language will have moved on another step in its evolution.  Whether that's a forwards or backwards step depends on your point of view.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: 25wishes on October 07, 2012, 04:32:56 PM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shoo on October 07, 2012, 04:59:14 PM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: demarco on October 07, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.

I have come across this phrase a few times starting maybe thirty or more years ago.  I agree, it makes no sense.  I had the hardest time figuring out what it meant, even in context.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: squeakers on October 08, 2012, 08:07:27 AM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

I kind of "get" the first one.

"She called me John".  John is my name.

"She called me a stupid git." Stupid git is not my name. By calling me stupid git she has taken away my name.  "Calling out" means to say/to speak.. so.. still convoluted but makes a little sense.

Sort of reminds me of the tribes who believed taking a photo of them would take their souls away from them. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-559163.html
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on October 08, 2012, 10:47:33 AM
For awhile, I'm not sure why, when referring to a king-making ceremony, the trend was to refer to the process as "coronating

"Edward Eighth soon abdicated/So George the sixth was coronated"

A line from a poem helping you to remember the order of the Kings of England/GB beginning "Willy, Willy, Harry,Ste, Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

As for the use of Might and May: it's not regional as far as I know
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 08, 2012, 11:03:29 AM
Why not use "crowning" instead of "coronating"? It's shorter, and it's less pretentious. (I do tend toward the Anglo-Saxon word over the Romance one, in almost every word-choice situation. I'm not sure why.)

I also would strike "foundational" in favor of "fundamental."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: 25wishes on October 08, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

Is it just one person you've heard say this, or many people?  I have never heard it before.  Honestly, it is so utterly bizarre I can't even imagine someone saying it.  It makes absolutely NO sense.

I have heard it many times on television. No one I know says it.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Oh Joy on October 08, 2012, 11:46:49 AM
Why not use "crowning" instead of "coronating"? It's shorter, and it's less pretentious.
...

I don't know...I gave birth to our second child six days ago, and can't quite associate that word with a dignified royal event!   ;)  But I do think a pretentious word is totally appropriate for that momentous of an occasion.

In general I am a big fan of the plain language movement.  I've been following this thread, but don't recall anyone pointing to this website: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/index.cfm
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on October 08, 2012, 12:19:42 PM
My brain is breaking over the word "contracepting," which has been showing up in the political sphere recently.  On the one hand, it's not a word!  On the other hand, there's no quick and snappy verb meaning "using contraception," so I can understand why.  There's no good way to say "We're contracepting ourselves out of existence!" unless you make up the word "contracepting."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 08, 2012, 01:54:18 PM
My brain is breaking over the word "contracepting," which has been showing up in the political sphere recently.  On the one hand, it's not a word!  On the other hand, there's no quick and snappy verb meaning "using contraception," so I can understand why.  There's no good way to say "We're contracepting ourselves out of existence!" unless you make up the word "contracepting."

I... actually like the word.  It's a clean word that makes sense, not only in the term "using contraception", but also when you actually break the word down, as in "actively trying not to conceive".  I can understand the opposition due to it not being a real word, but no word is a real word until it's invented, right?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on October 08, 2012, 05:28:09 PM
My brain is breaking over the word "contracepting," which has been showing up in the political sphere recently.  On the one hand, it's not a word!  On the other hand, there's no quick and snappy verb meaning "using contraception," so I can understand why.  There's no good way to say "We're contracepting ourselves out of existence!" unless you make up the word "contracepting."

I... actually like the word.  It's a clean word that makes sense, not only in the term "using contraception", but also when you actually break the word down, as in "actively trying not to conceive".  I can understand the opposition due to it not being a real word, but no word is a real word until it's invented, right?

That's about the conclusion I've grudgingly come to, but it still makes my head hurt  :P
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Free Range Hippy Chick on October 09, 2012, 03:36:36 AM
Should it not be 'contraceiving'?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 09, 2012, 09:35:09 AM
To be completely grammatically correct, yes.  But, the root is contraception, and trying to get people to move past that would be difficult at best.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shoo on October 09, 2012, 10:18:51 AM
I often see people write standing "on line" instead of "in line."  To me that makes no sense.  The line is something you stand in, not on.  I don't think it's possible to stand on a line of people.  I've seen Americans use this phrase as well as non-Americans. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 09, 2012, 03:04:13 PM
Two things that are pretty much the same thing: those are "one and the same."

"One in the same" doesn't even make SENSE.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Lovemykids on October 09, 2012, 03:24:39 PM
I often see people write standing "on line" instead of "in line."  To me that makes no sense.  The line is something you stand in, not on.  I don't think it's possible to stand on a line of people.  I've seen Americans use this phrase as well as non-Americans.

I usually hear this from my friends who grew up in the New York/New England region.  One of them told me that when she was young and going to public elementary school, each class would have to line up on a parking lot line in the morning before being led into school by the teachers.  This was her explanation for "standing on line."  I don't know if it's one of those word origins that's been made up to fit the phrase, but it's what she told me . . .
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Editeer on October 09, 2012, 03:39:31 PM
I don't believe this has been mentioned yet -

She called me out of my name -- meaning

She called me a name.

First one makes NO sense, second one says it exactly. Can't figure it out.

I believe that "She called me out of my name" means "She called me something other than my correct name" with the implication that she did it deliberately to be disrespectful.
 
So, "She called me out of my name" could mean--
"She called me a stupid git"
or
"She called me Bobby when she knows I prefer Robert."


As for "standing on line"--I grew up in New York, and we indeed said "on line" instead of "in line." This was way before the Internet and the whole idea of doing things "on line" (on a network). I have no idea where it came from, though.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: demarco on October 09, 2012, 06:06:59 PM
I often see people write standing "on line" instead of "in line."  To me that makes no sense.  The line is something you stand in, not on.  I don't think it's possible to stand on a line of people.  I've seen Americans use this phrase as well as non-Americans.

I usually hear this from my friends who grew up in the New York/New England region.  One of them told me that when she was young and going to public elementary school, each class would have to line up on a parking lot line in the morning before being led into school by the teachers.  This was her explanation for "standing on line."  I don't know if it's one of those word origins that's been made up to fit the phrase, but it's what she told me . . .

I grew upon Massachusetts and always said "in line" as did everyone else I knew.  It was not until I met my NYC raised boyfriend that I ever heard anyone say "on line." It sounded so wrong and, you are right, Shoo, it makes no sense.  I tried to break him of it to no avail. I married him anyway.  He still says it his way and I say it mine. 

I suspect this started out being regional and spread.  I hear a lot of people say it now. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 10, 2012, 08:56:54 AM
'In line' and 'on line' do seem to be regional things. 

Along the same lines, in some areas people 'fill out a form'.  In others they 'fill out a form'. 

Most New Yorkers I know 'stand on line to fill out a form'.
And here we queue.

Ps you've got the same phrase twice there.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 10, 2012, 09:07:26 AM
'In line' and 'on line' do seem to be regional things. 

Along the same lines, in some areas people 'fill out a form'.  In others they 'fill out a form'. 

Most New Yorkers I know 'stand on line to fill out a form'.
And here we queue.

Ps you've got the same phrase twice there.

I fixed that, thank you.

BTW, I understand that 'filling in a form' is the standard in Australia. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: baglady on October 10, 2012, 01:34:10 PM
I have an acquaintance from the Midwest who says things happen "on accident." I've always heard/said "by accident."

I fill out forms by filling in the blanks.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 10, 2012, 01:35:45 PM
I'm from northwestern PA; I say both "by accident" and "on accident", depending on the rest of the sentence.

"I did it on accident."
"It happened by accident."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Gyburc on October 11, 2012, 06:08:26 AM
My current grammar pet peeve is the use of the word 'whereby', which seems to have become the word of choice for radio presenters in the UK.

Whereby means 'because of which' or 'as a result of which', but it's constantly being used as a synonym for 'in which' - so for example 'This is a situation whereby person X is doing Y...'

It drives. me. nuts. For goodness' sake, if you're determined to use a complicated word to try to sound clever, get it right!

signed,

Gyburc who shouts at the radio quite a lot.  ;D

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 11, 2012, 08:51:52 AM
'In line' and 'on line' do seem to be regional things. 

Along the same lines, in some areas people 'fill out a form'.  In others they 'fill out a form'. 

Most New Yorkers I know 'stand on line to fill out a form'.
And here we queue.

Ps you've got the same phrase twice there.

I fixed that, thank you.

BTW, I understand that 'filling in a form' is the standard in Australia.
Actually both sound plausible to me. Perhaps I fill it in more than out.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 11, 2012, 09:40:34 AM
My current grammar pet peeve is the use of the word 'whereby', which seems to have become the word of choice for radio presenters in the UK.

Whereby means 'because of which' or 'as a result of which', but it's constantly being used as a synonym for 'in which' - so for example 'This is a situation whereby person X is doing Y...'

It drives. me. nuts. For goodness' sake, if you're determined to use a complicated word to try to sound clever, get it right!

signed,

Gyburc who shouts at the radio quite a lot.  ;D

Along the same lines, people who use "wherefore" to mean "where"; it means "why".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 11, 2012, 11:36:21 AM
For awhile, I'm not sure why, when referring to a king-making ceremony, the trend was to refer to the process as "coronating

"Edward Eighth soon abdicated/So George the sixth was coronated"

A line from a poem helping you to remember the order of the Kings of England/GB beginning "Willy, Willy, Harry,Ste, Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

Have just noticed this post -- can't resist chiming in, re the splendid rhyme for remembering the order of English / British monarchs. The version I learned, avoids near its end, awkwardly contrived verbs -- very much at the expense of metre:

"Edward the Seventh and George Five,
 Then Edward 8, George 6, and Elizabeth-the-Second-who's-still-alive."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 14, 2012, 09:39:07 AM
I remember the old trick for memorizing the dynasties in what is now the UK.

'No Plan Like Yours To Study History Wisely'.

Norman
Plantagenet
Lancaster
York
Tudor
Stuart
Hanover
Windsor

Hey, it works. 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on October 14, 2012, 10:48:18 AM
Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

I love the filters adjusting the name of Richard 1 to wingadingdingy. the poem later refers to Edward 1V and  whingadingdingy the Bad (Richard III). However, it lets the post get away with the word Willy, which in the UK means the same thing as wingadingdingy.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 14, 2012, 11:41:51 AM
Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

I love the filters adjusting the name of Richard 1 to wingadingdingy. the poem later refers to Edward 1V and  whingadingdingy the Bad (Richard III). However, it lets the post get away with the word Willy, which in the UK means the same thing as wingadingdingy.

Yeah, but at the same time I can talk about having a bum knee and the actress Fanny Brice.  It's a transoceanic thing.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on October 14, 2012, 12:38:19 PM
Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

I love the filters adjusting the name of Richard 1 to wingadingdingy. the poem later refers to Edward 1V and  whingadingdingy the Bad (Richard III). However, it lets the post get away with the word Willy, which in the UK means the same thing as wingadingdingy.
It's understood here, too.  Bill Clinton was nicknamed "Slick Willy" for more reasons than one!

Also, if you google for "willy warmers" you will get some...ahem..."interesting" pictures.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 14, 2012, 05:38:12 PM
Harry, wingadingdingy, John, Harry three...."etc.

I love the filters adjusting the name of Richard 1 to wingadingdingy. the poem later refers to Edward 1V and  whingadingdingy the Bad (Richard III). However, it lets the post get away with the word Willy, which in the UK means the same thing as wingadingdingy.

I find myself wondering how the Lionheart would have reacted to being called "wingadingdingy". One gathers that he did have a sense of humour -- maybe it would have amused him...
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Gyburc on October 17, 2012, 08:32:11 AM
...totally OT - Richard I may have had a sense of humour but definitely didn't have a sense of self-preservation.

He was mortally injured while laying siege to a castle in France because he saw one of the defenders aiming a crossbow at him, and stopped to applaud the man's bravery before ducking. Result, one crossbow bolt to the shoulder and a nice infected puncture wound...  ::)

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 17, 2012, 08:42:57 AM
I swear, if I hear one more person say "wadn't" instead of wasn't, I'm going to lose it.  Mental Boyfriend is driving me nuts with it, but it only got worse once Mental Mother got home and did it, too.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 08:49:22 AM
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 17, 2012, 09:00:02 AM
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

I have never noticed this except from someone with a clear speech difficulty. Do you mind mentioning what part of the world you're in?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 09:01:58 AM
Houston, Texas. I listen to mostly AM radio in the car, so I don't know if (what passes for) music DJs do it too.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 17, 2012, 09:49:35 AM
Houston, Texas. I listen to mostly AM radio in the car, so I don't know if (what passes for) music DJs do it too.

Huh. I grew up listening to Houston radio (KPFT, KUHF and KTRU, really, so not AM), and I listen to public radio in Central Texas now. Guess I'll have to see if I can spot this!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 17, 2012, 09:56:12 AM
I have definitely noticed it, but not in any specific region.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on October 17, 2012, 10:19:36 AM
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

I have never noticed this except from someone with a clear speech difficulty. Do you mind mentioning what part of the world you're in?
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 10:22:51 AM
I don't think these are professionals. Most of them are commercials for local businesses, and generally the "talent" tends to be the owner's daughter.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 17, 2012, 10:59:39 AM
Along with submissive Ss, dominant Ts always get under my skin.  Ts in the middle of words like "important" being spat out are distracting.  It also invariably slows the speaker down.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 11:08:43 AM
I used to work with a woman who enunciated every single consonant. It was pretty distracting.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 17, 2012, 05:02:17 PM
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

Sean Connory works at your local radio station?  Brilliant!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 17, 2012, 05:04:23 PM
...totally OT - Richard I may have had a sense of humour but definitely didn't have a sense of self-preservation.

He was mortally injured while laying siege to a castle in France because he saw one of the defenders aiming a crossbow at him, and stopped to applaud the man's bravery before ducking. Result, one crossbow bolt to the shoulder and a nice infected puncture wound...  ::)

I've read, further to this, that: between Richard's wounding and his consequent death a couple of days later, the besieged castle fell.  The crossbowman concerned was brought before the dying king; who, in a spirit of fairness and continuing respect for the guy's skill and courage, ordered that no harm should come to him.  The general who was Richard's second-in-command, was a hard case who set no store by this "chivalry" nonsense.  After the king had breathed his last, the general disobeyed his late monarch's command, and saw to it that the crossbowman died also, slowly and nastily.
 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bansidhe on October 17, 2012, 05:54:17 PM
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'.

Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

ETA: Awwww, nuts. I though this was the Little Things that Drive You Up the Wall thread. My complaint isn't really grammar-related. (Still drives me batty, though.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 17, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 17, 2012, 06:18:39 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 17, 2012, 07:02:58 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 07:15:09 PM
S is an underappreciated consonant. For some reason, lots of people think it's weak and can't live on its own without an H next to it. Once you notice it, you will never stop noticing it. Many radio commercials in my area have this problem: shtrong, shtraight, shtand.

Sean Connory works at your local radio station?  Brilliant!

Heh heh. That will make it considerably more bearable, imagining Sean doing all those voiceovers.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 17, 2012, 07:16:22 PM
Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

American singers who drop their Rs to sound British just make me nuts.

Also, Jeri Hall. I don't EVEN know what that accent is supposed to be.

Oh yeah, and anyone remember when Kathleen Turner went temporarily insane and had a German accent?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 17, 2012, 07:23:37 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.

"Boring" isn't a cause, though.  Uninteresting subject matter is the cause, it is what is boring, and boredom, and thus being bored, is the effect.  In your example, the gangrene toe is the cause and the nausea is the effect.

I also don't know what you mean by your very first words, "Actually, no...".  What do you mean by it?

*Please not that I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand; it isn't making sense to me.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 17, 2012, 07:29:05 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

For an example:

The patient's gangrene toe was nauseous and I nearly threw up when I saw it.

The gangrene toe was the cause of the speaker's nausea.

Alternatively:

When looking at the patient's gangrene toe, I became nauseated and nearly threw up.

In this case "nauseated" is the effect.

"Boring" isn't a cause, though.  Uninteresting subject matter is the cause, it is what is boring, and boredom, and thus being bored, is the effect.  In your example, the gangrene toe is the cause and the nausea is the effect.

I also don't know what you mean by your very first words, "Actually, no...".  What do you mean by it?

*Please not that I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand; it isn't making sense to me.

I didn't think you were arguing at all.  And, please forgive me, as I'm a math teacher (and a darned good one at that), but explaining the nuances of grammar sort of gets me sometimes.  If you'll give me a little bit of time, I can impose upon a good friend who's a linguistic expert and will be quite happy to help me formulate a better explanation. I've emailed her, so she'll likely respond before the end of the evening.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 17, 2012, 07:46:20 PM
Take your time  :D  I love learning new things!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: TZ on October 17, 2012, 08:46:26 PM
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'.

Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

ETA: Awwww, nuts. I though this was the Little Things that Drive You Up the Wall thread. My complaint isn't really grammar-related. (Still drives me batty, though.)
I cannot sing a Beatles song without a fake Liverpudlian accent. I've tried, but I just can't. It's a physical impossibility. :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on October 17, 2012, 08:51:49 PM
That is almost equal to attempting to sing anything from My Fair Lady without the appropriate class-driven accents.  The very idea!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 18, 2012, 02:35:39 AM
Take your time  :D  I love learning new things!

My friend got back to me with a few links that help explain.  I was sort of hoping for one of her technical explanations, which is likely still in the works, but I wanted to post these links for you in the interim.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-comments.aspx

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nau1.htm

I'll post again when she can send me a more technical explanation. She's amazing at explaining the most technical grammar concepts in a way that's approachable and understandable by pretty much anybody. :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bexx27 on October 18, 2012, 09:21:13 AM
OK, I have to chime in on the nauseous/nauseated debate. It is not grammatically incorrect to use "nauseous" to mean "nauseated." Yes, you can make technical arguments for why nauseous should not mean nauseated, but the fact its that nauseous has had that meaning, in addition to the "disgusting" meaning, for centuries and it is considered standard English. From dictionary.com:

Usage note
The two literal senses of nauseous,  “causing nausea” ( a nauseous smell ) and “affected with nausea” ( to feel nauseous ), appear in English at almost the same time in the early 17th century, and both senses are in standard use at the present time. Nauseous is more common than nauseated in the sense “affected with nausea,” despite recent objections by those who imagine the sense to be new. In the sense “causing nausea,” either literally or figuratively, nauseating  has become more common than nauseous : a nauseating smell."


Incidentally, the same is true when it comes to "hopefully" being used to mean "I hope."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on October 18, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
...not to be confused with ad nauseum; which means repeatedly until it becomes annoying

I heard ad nauseous the other day,  :'(

recently heard adverbatim (which I took to mean verbatim)  who knows if they meant verbatim or ad nauseum ?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Onyx_TKD on October 18, 2012, 02:20:36 PM
...not to be confused with ad nauseum; which means repeatedly until it becomes annoying

I heard ad nauseous the other day,  :'(

recently heard adverbatim (which I took to mean verbatim)  who knows if they meant verbatim or ad nauseum ?

Maybe "ad verbatim" means restating a quote repeatedly until you actually manage to quote it correctly? Or rephrasing something so many times that you end up coming back the exact same wording you used earlier? ;D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Ms_Cellany on October 18, 2012, 02:31:45 PM
My grammar pet peeve is the word "nauseous".  The relationship of the words nauseous and nauseated is analogous to the words boring and bored. When a person says "I feel nauseous", he or she is really saying "I feel I have a quality that makes others sick to their stomachs."  Instead the speaker should say "I feel nauseated," which means that he or she is feeling sick to the stomach.

Nauseous also means affected by nausea, though, so I don't see why it is incorrect.  Could you please explain?

Actually, no, but the common usage of the word has become so commonplace that most of us who shudder at the use of the word have given up on trying to correct it.  If you look at the words boring and bored, "boring" is the cause and "bored" is the effect.  This is a perfect analogy to nauseous and nauseated.  Nauseous is the cause and nauseated is the effect.

"Poisonous" and "poisoned" also work as analogs.

"A poisonous plant." "A poisoned person."

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on October 19, 2012, 09:04:08 AM
Yesterday I heard a friend refer to a blaring flashlight

now I always think of blaring as in sound and blazing as in sight, but she used blaring several times so I don't think she was confused with the two words, she believes blaring is the correct usage.  I wonder if she was thinking of glaring?

I have also heard blazing used in describing a too loud radio.  Are these terms interchangeable in today's language?

 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: AfleetAlex on October 19, 2012, 09:12:36 AM
'Ad verbatim' sounds like it ought to be used as such: "I've heard the same political commercials so many times in the last week that I could recite them 'ad verbatim.'"   ;D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on October 19, 2012, 09:35:39 AM
Something I saw on another forum.  Context suggests that the person meant "prima donna", but what they wrote was "pre-madonna."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Redneck Gravy on October 19, 2012, 09:58:15 AM
Something I saw on another forum.  Context suggests that the person meant "prima donna", but what they wrote was "pre-madonna."

I had a flash of "before Christ"  >:D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 19, 2012, 12:03:54 PM
...not to be confused with ad nauseum; which means repeatedly until it becomes annoying

I heard ad nauseous the other day,  :'(

recently heard adverbatim (which I took to mean verbatim)  who knows if they meant verbatim or ad nauseum ?

Could I be a really obnoxious hyper-correcting nitpicker and general pain?  Correct spelling of the "ad n." expression, is actually "ad nauseam" (penultimate letter a, not u): the originally Latin word "nausea", is a Latin feminine noun -- so in the accusative case, following the preposition "ad" (meaning here, "to the point of"), the word becomes "nauseam".  If the word beginning with "n" had been a neuter noun, "ad nauseum" would be right.
(Captain Know-It-All signs off, to everyone's relief  :) )
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 19, 2012, 12:27:52 PM
Yesterday I heard a friend refer to a blaring flashlight

now I always think of blaring as in sound and blazing as in sight, but she used blaring several times so I don't think she was confused with the two words, she believes blaring is the correct usage.  I wonder if she was thinking of glaring?

I have also heard blazing used in describing a too loud radio.  Are these terms interchangeable in today's language?

I have a friend who sometimes tries his hand at "literary" writing about our shared hobby, railways. He consistently uses "blazing", to describe the sound of locomotive whistles or horns, enthusiastically and prolongedly blown. I've never ventured to ask him whether he really means "blaring", or...?

I had thought almost lifelong, the same as you, " blaring: sound, blazing: sight"; but what with our various instances as above, I'm beginning to wonder...
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbagegirl28 on October 19, 2012, 07:22:50 PM
I hear it, or the substitute 'th' here in Maryland, and on professionally recorded music.  I believe that singers and other people who are recorded are taught that 's' comes across the microphone as a very sharp hiss, so they soften it to 'sh' or 'th'.

Which brings me to something that has driven me bonkers for a long, long time: singers using deliberate mispronunciations and fake accents. Why? I don't get it and it's annoying and distracting. Two really big offenders:
- the word "baby" being pronounced bay-bay, and
- the word "want" being pronounced like "won't," apparently in an attempt to mimic a southern US accent. The Rolling Stones sing You Can't Always Get What You Won't, for example.

It's just so fake and affected.

ETA: Awwww, nuts. I though this was the Little Things that Drive You Up the Wall thread. My complaint isn't really grammar-related. (Still drives me batty, though.)
I cannot sing a Beatles song without a fake Liverpudlian accent. I've tried, but I just can't. It's a physical impossibility. :)

I'm really goofy, because I end up sounding like Elvis when I sing along to the Beatles. :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Julia Mercer on October 19, 2012, 07:59:15 PM
I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I hate when people want to AXE a question, would it "kill" them to be grammatically correct?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 20, 2012, 12:08:04 AM
I'm really goofy, because I end up sounding like Elvis when I sing along to the Beatles. :)
Nothing at all to do with grammar quirks; but, cabbagegirl28, I see that we've lately had adjacent posts. When I signed up with the forum, I'd not yet become aware that there was a poster called "cabbagegirl". If I'd realised, I'd have chosen another forum name -- had no intention of stealing your "trademark" !
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 20, 2012, 12:23:49 AM
Something I saw on another forum.  Context suggests that the person meant "prima donna", but what they wrote was "pre-madonna."

I had a flash of "before Christ"  >:D

Now that made me spit my Diet Coke all over my laptop screen.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shakira on October 20, 2012, 03:04:05 AM
Using the word "addicting" in place of "addictive".

"These chips are so addicting!" No. Just no. Using this makes people sound less intelligent.

"These chips are so addictive!" Or "these chips are addicting me to them". 

It's my biggest grammar pet peeve and it just makes me twitch every time. It drives me crazy whenever I see this, or any other grammar mistake in a business setting. I don't care if it's "only Facebook", your company is still putting itself out there with it's offer of a "beet and feeld green salad", or that they will DEFIANTLY let their customers know. That always makes me giggle.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 20, 2012, 10:08:33 AM
Heck, for me, it's people who use addictive to something that can, at best, be habit forming.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 20, 2012, 11:21:47 AM
Using the word "addicting" in place of "addictive".

"These chips are so addicting!" No. Just no. Using this makes people sound less intelligent.

"These chips are so addictive!" Or "these chips are addicting me to them". 

It's my biggest grammar pet peeve and it just makes me twitch every time. It drives me crazy whenever I see this, or any other grammar mistake in a business setting. I don't care if it's "only Facebook", your company is still putting itself out there with it's offer of a "beet and feeld green salad", or that they will DEFIANTLY let their customers know. That always makes me giggle.

(Cough) *its offer* (cough).

Sorry.  I couldn't resist the temptation.  I'm addicted to protecting apostrophes!
 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Shakira on October 20, 2012, 12:24:04 PM
Argh!! Darn you autocorrect!!!!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 21, 2012, 08:36:27 AM
Now that the US Presidential election is coming up, I've been noticing something a little odd about the Electoral College.  Well, there's always something odd about that institution, but I digress.

I always thought that the pronunciation was 'e-LEC-tor-al'.  However, many newspeople are using 'e-lec-TOR-al'. 

Which pronunciation do you prefer? 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 21, 2012, 08:50:29 AM
I have only ever heard it (news, conversation, school) with the accent on the third syllable.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Pioneer on October 22, 2012, 08:34:55 AM
Electoral

I can appreciate both e-LEC-tor-al and e-lec-TOR-al.  However, e-lec-tor-EEE-al makes me quite stabby.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 22, 2012, 10:40:53 AM
Electoral

I can appreciate both e-LEC-tor-al and e-lec-TOR-al.  However, e-lec-tor-EEE-al makes me quite stabby.

I'm thankful I haven't heard that one....yet.  Tat's almost as bad as 'chimbly' for the brick thing on top of a house. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 24, 2012, 09:49:40 PM
I Heard 2 today that set my teeth on edge:

"Sim-yoo-larities" and "Fedral".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 25, 2012, 02:38:50 AM
Nucular?  >:D

I know this is cultural, but in Australia we used to say someone had two operations, rather than two surgeries. The surgery is the place where you are operated upon. But more and more I hear the American usage creeping in.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 25, 2012, 01:39:09 PM
Nucular?  >:D

I know this is cultural, but in Australia we used to say someone had two operations, rather than two surgeries. The surgery is the place where you are operated upon. But more and more I hear the American usage creeping in.

You can also have surgery in the operating room here (often referred to as the OR).
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: ClaireC79 on October 25, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 25, 2012, 05:33:13 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 26, 2012, 12:30:33 AM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices
Yes you are quite correct.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: mmswm on October 26, 2012, 12:50:45 AM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, no, no.  The theater is a particular portion of a multi-faceted war.  For example:  My grandfather was stationed in the Pacific Theater during WWII.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 26, 2012, 01:34:38 AM
Can I just say this is the most fun forum game I've ever been in?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 26, 2012, 01:37:52 AM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 26, 2012, 07:16:32 AM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

No, you go to the cinema to watch movies.  You pick up your films from the photo lab.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 26, 2012, 08:08:24 AM
No.  You go to then to lab to pick up your pictures. 

Films are movies with sub-titles that play in very small cinemas.  Disney makes movies, not films. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 26, 2012, 08:22:13 AM
No, you use a SD card reader to get your pictures.  :D
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 26, 2012, 10:54:40 AM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

No, you go to the cinema to watch movies.  You pick up your films from the photo lab.

Nope, I pick up my photos from the photo lab.  And the negatives.   At least I did, in the good old days before we digitalised our entire lives.

I only go to the movies when I'm in the US.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: bansidhe on October 26, 2012, 01:59:32 PM
Films are movies with sub-titles that play in very small cinemas.  Disney makes movies, not films.

Thank you. The indiscriminate use of "film" is one of my big pet peeves. I once saw a magazine article titled The Films of Keanu Reeves. That dude most definitely does not make films. In fact, I would characterize most of them as flicks.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 26, 2012, 06:37:46 PM
I meant to say you "drop off" your film at the photo lab, not pick up them.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 26, 2012, 07:38:40 PM
Well, first you drop off your pictures at the photo lab,  then you pick up the prints. 

Ah, the old complaint about photo labs, 'Someday my prints will come'.

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 26, 2012, 07:40:25 PM
Well, first you drop off your pictures at the photo lab,  then you pick up the prints. 

Ah, the old complaint about photo labs, 'Someday my prints will come'.

I drop off my film and pick up my pictures.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: wendelenn on October 26, 2012, 07:50:00 PM
Films are movies with sub-titles that play in very small cinemas.  Disney makes movies, not films.

Thank you. The indiscriminate use of "film" is one of my big pet peeves. I once saw a magazine article titled The Films of Keanu Reeves. That dude most definitely does not make films. In fact, I would characterize most of them as flicks.

Maybe, but flicks are also chocolate flavored candy (says this San Francisco-bred girl)

http://www.oldtimecandy.com/flicks.htm

Couldn't resist :)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on October 26, 2012, 08:59:51 PM
Well, first you drop off your pictures at the photo lab,  then you pick up the prints. 

Ah, the old complaint about photo labs, 'Someday my prints will come'.

I drop off my film and pick up my pictures.
I used to do that, probably even in this century, but not this decade.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on October 27, 2012, 09:44:59 AM
I drop my film off at Boots, a large chemists chain in the UK, they sened it off to be developed, and then I collected the prints later on.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 27, 2012, 10:59:28 AM
To get us back on track re grammar, I wanted to test your views on 'shined' versus 'shone'. 

I can't think of a situation where I'd use "shined" for the past tense of the verb 'to shine'.  I'd always use 'shone'.  So the moon shone in the sky; the light of the torch (flashlight, in the US) shone on the path to light our way etc.  I don't ever shine my shoes: I polish them.  To me, 'shined' sounds totally wrong. 

So, is this just another transatlantic difference that we should forget about or is there a real case to be made to regularise all our irregular verbs?  I can't say I'd like that concept, but I can understand that it would make English an easier language to learn!




Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Thipu1 on October 27, 2012, 01:47:45 PM
'Shined' vs 'Shone' is a tough one. 

One could say that someone had, 'beautifully shined shoes'.  'Shone' would never be used there. 

After an evening storm, one could say that, 'In the morning, the Sun shone beautifully'.

As I understand it, 'shined' is usually used when someone polishes something.

'Shone' is used when something or someone is doing their own shining. 

A middle situation may be when Jimmy makes a good performance.  You can say that, 'Jimmy really shined in that role' or that 'Jimmy really shone in that role'.

That's because Jimmy made the role shine from both meanings. 

Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: pinkyblue on October 27, 2012, 10:50:48 PM
"Laundrymat."  Please ... it's "laundromat."  AARRGGHH!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Specky on October 27, 2012, 11:50:59 PM
Liberry
Alot
Him and me
Myself and her
APOSTROPHES!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 28, 2012, 02:07:44 AM
From Thipu1 :

'Shined' vs 'Shone' is a tough one. 

One could say that someone had, 'beautifully shined shoes'.  'Shone' would never be used there. 

Well, 'shined' is acting as an adjective in that phrase, rather than a verb, but even so I'd say 'Joe had beautifully polished shoes'.  Or maybe 'Joe's shoes are beautifully shiny!"


After an evening storm, one could say that, 'In the morning, the Sun shone beautifully'.

Yes!  Thumbs up!



As I understand it, 'shined' is usually used when someone polishes something.

'Shone' is used when something or someone is doing their own shining. 


I've seen this distinction before  - and of course, I've heard of 'shoe-shine boys' - but I'm coming to the conclusion that it's a transatlantic difference.  Shoe-shine machines or stations (you see the odd one here and there here.  I know there's one in Canary Wharf, for all those banking executives who need shiny shoes!) are probably the only example I can think of in the UK where this might apply. 

Of course, that may be regional here, and 'shined' as a verb may be more common elsewhere in the UK.  And I may be thoroughly old fashioned and other UK EHellions are sniggering at me!



A middle situation may be when Jimmy makes a good performance.  You can say that, 'Jimmy really shined in that role' or that 'Jimmy really shone in that role'.

That's because Jimmy made the role shine from both meanings.


Again, it would be 'shone', for me.

An intractable problem, I fear!




On another note, I read a lot of US authored fanfiction, and increasingly I see things like:

"That is so cliché!"  rather than what I'd write, which would be "That is so clichéd!" 

Or

"You are so prejudice!"  instead of "You are so prejudiced."   


For me, 'cliché'  and 'prejudice' are nouns, not an adjectives.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 28, 2012, 09:41:44 AM
starry diadem, I have heard "cliche" instead of "cliched", but I think what happens with "prejudiced" is that people just don't pronounce the hard "d" at the end.  A good example of what I mean is with how people pronounce ghosts, desks, and the likes.  They inevitably, for most people, become "dess" and "ghos-s".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 28, 2012, 01:09:57 PM
I always hear desks and ghosts with all their letters pronounced (except, arguably, the H in ghosts).

I am editing a book right now in which people put their hands on their wastes and then pick one up and waive it to say hello.

Also, everything that is done has an absurd number of modifiers attached to it. Any time something is said, if the quote is fewer than 5 words, it is "said simply." All thoughts are "thought silently," all hearts "beat inside of (their) chests" and all things that are said in a certain way are "said in a ___ tone" instead of "said __ly."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 29, 2012, 06:03:14 AM
starry diadem, I have heard "cliche" instead of "cliched", but I think what happens with "prejudiced" is that people just don't pronounce the hard "d" at the end.  A good example of what I mean is with how people pronounce ghosts, desks, and the likes.  They inevitably, for most people, become "dess" and "ghos-s".

And then it leaks over into their writing, you mean? That makes sense.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 29, 2012, 06:04:44 AM
I always hear desks and ghosts with all their letters pronounced (except, arguably, the H in ghosts).

I am editing a book right now in which people put their hands on their wastes and then pick one up and waive it to say hello.

Also, everything that is done has an absurd number of modifiers attached to it. Any time something is said, if the quote is fewer than 5 words, it is "said simply." All thoughts are "thought silently," all hearts "beat inside of (their) chests" and all things that are said in a certain way are "said in a ___ tone" instead of "said __ly."

Sounds like a real literary gem!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on October 29, 2012, 08:10:40 AM
starry diadem, I have heard "cliche" instead of "cliched", but I think what happens with "prejudiced" is that people just don't pronounce the hard "d" at the end.  A good example of what I mean is with how people pronounce ghosts, desks, and the likes.  They inevitably, for most people, become "dess" and "ghos-s".

And then it leaks over into their writing, you mean? That makes sense.

Yes, they are really just spelling what they hear (or think they hear).
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 29, 2012, 11:47:11 AM
I don't know if this is a grammar quirk, but I've noticed that some phrases come out not at all like the words, but still people know what they mean...
"Imuhna eat then go to the show."  ("I'm going to (or I'm gonna) eat then go to the show."
"Wuhduhyuh think?"  ("What do you think?")
There are others I've noticed, but can't recall off the top of my head.  I oways think it's kyna of fascinating,  doenchu?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 29, 2012, 12:23:10 PM
I will go to my grave screeching about the distinction between "over" and "more than."

I also just saw something that made my teeth itch: "over a 100 somethings." Over a one hundred somethings?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on October 29, 2012, 01:40:16 PM
I always hear desks and ghosts with all their letters pronounced (except, arguably, the H in ghosts).

I am editing a book right now in which people put their hands on their wastes and then pick one up and waive it to say hello.
But the SPELL-CHECK said it was right!!!!

Quote
Also, everything that is done has an absurd number of modifiers attached to it. Any time something is said, if the quote is fewer than 5 words, it is "said simply." All thoughts are "thought silently," all hearts "beat inside of (their) chests" and all things that are said in a certain way are "said in a ___ tone" instead of "said __ly."


Sounds like a real literary gem!
What, you never read any of Jean Auel's caveman books?  The woman is apparently horrified by naked nouns.  They have to be accompanied at all times by at least one and preferably  two adjectives.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: EmmaJ. on October 29, 2012, 01:47:38 PM
I always hear desks and ghosts with all their letters pronounced (except, arguably, the H in ghosts).

I am editing a book right now in which people put their hands on their wastes and then pick one up and waive it to say hello.
But the SPELL-CHECK said it was right!!!!

Quote
Also, everything that is done has an absurd number of modifiers attached to it. Any time something is said, if the quote is fewer than 5 words, it is "said simply." All thoughts are "thought silently," all hearts "beat inside of (their) chests" and all things that are said in a certain way are "said in a ___ tone" instead of "said __ly."


Sounds like a real literary gem!
What, you never read any of Jean Auel's caveman books?  The woman is apparently horrified by naked nouns.  They have to be accompanied at all times by at least one and preferably  two adjectives.

That (among many other things) irritated me so much I stopped reading the series after the 2nd book.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on October 29, 2012, 02:03:08 PM
"Opportunity" to mean "flaw." I hate this little bit of jargon with a passion. I can kind of see how it evolved, but I'm tired of reading stuff like "This design project had an opportunity in the upper left corner."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Onyx_TKD on October 29, 2012, 02:32:38 PM
"Opportunity" to mean "flaw." I hate this little bit of jargon with a passion. I can kind of see how it evolved, but I'm tired of reading stuff like "This design project had an opportunity in the upper left corner."

Huh?  ??? What field does this jargon come from?

The only way I see "opportunity" being a synonym for "flaw" is for someone trying to exploit it, and I'm not really seeing how that would happen with something like a design project. E.g., A software bug is a flaw for a programmer, but an "opportunity" for a hacker. A loophole in a rule is a flaw for the rulemaker, but an "opportunity" for someone trying to skirt the rule. How is a flaw in a design project an "opportunity"? ???  Please enlighten me, so that (most likely) I too can hate this bizarre turn of phrase with an (informed) passion.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on October 29, 2012, 02:37:46 PM
"Opportunity" to mean "flaw." I hate this little bit of jargon with a passion. I can kind of see how it evolved, but I'm tired of reading stuff like "This design project had an opportunity in the upper left corner."

Huh?  ??? What field does this jargon come from?

The only way I see "opportunity" being a synonym for "flaw" is for someone trying to exploit it, and I'm not really seeing how that would happen with something like a design project. E.g., A software bug is a flaw for a programmer, but an "opportunity" for a hacker. A loophole in a rule is a flaw for the rulemaker, but an "opportunity" for someone trying to skirt the rule. How is a flaw in a design project an "opportunity"? ???  Please enlighten me, so that (most likely) I too can hate this bizarre turn of phrase with an (informed) passion.

It's an "opportunity" to improve, don't you see? (I know, totally annoying. Especially when the project is irrevocably DONE and there's no "opportunity" to actually change whatever was wrong with it.)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 29, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
"Opportunity" to mean "flaw." I hate this little bit of jargon with a passion. I can kind of see how it evolved, but I'm tired of reading stuff like "This design project had an opportunity in the upper left corner."

Huh?  ??? What field does this jargon come from?

The only way I see "opportunity" being a synonym for "flaw" is for someone trying to exploit it, and I'm not really seeing how that would happen with something like a design project. E.g., A software bug is a flaw for a programmer, but an "opportunity" for a hacker. A loophole in a rule is a flaw for the rulemaker, but an "opportunity" for someone trying to skirt the rule. How is a flaw in a design project an "opportunity"? ???  Please enlighten me, so that (most likely) I too can hate this bizarre turn of phrase with an (informed) passion.

It's an "opportunity" to improve, don't you see? (I know, totally annoying. Especially when the project is irrevocably DONE and there's no "opportunity" to actually change whatever was wrong with it.)

I think since the tense is "had" it's like "You had the opportunity to do something here, and you FAILED to capitalize!"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 29, 2012, 04:09:45 PM
Have I mentioned the Missing Neither yet?

"My husband nor I are interested in your service, but thanks."

What does that even mean? If you got a Nor, you must have a Neither at the same time.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: SingActDance on October 29, 2012, 04:12:12 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on October 29, 2012, 04:13:41 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."
… and I just attribute those to the er/re differences between American/British English.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Venus193 on October 29, 2012, 04:18:47 PM
Since we're on the subject I hate when people pronounce that "thee-AY-tur."  It sounds so uneducated.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 29, 2012, 04:22:46 PM
How about "THEE-uh-truh"? That makes my teeth itch.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Yvaine on October 29, 2012, 04:31:42 PM
How about "THEE-uh-truh"? That makes my teeth itch.

Eeek! I have never heard that one before!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 29, 2012, 04:38:41 PM
Oh yeah. I mostly hear that from my (grew-up-in-Texas) friends who wish to be thought cultured. These are generally the same people who think that a British accent is classy, so they affect one.

No, they don't do the accent or the vocab well. You don't mix U and Non-U, nor do you mix posh and cockney.

And no, Jeri Hall is not one of my friends.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Barney girl on October 29, 2012, 05:47:42 PM
One that irritates me is the use of 'entitled' which is often used on this site. So you might see something along the lines of - "the bride was so entitled and had the bridesmaids write all her thank you letters."
No, she wasn't entitled to this, just the opposite. I know it's being used as a shorthand for "she acted as though she were entitled ...", but it sets my teeth on edge every time I see it.  ::)
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 29, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."

Um, so far as this Brit is concerned, there is no such distinction, and we do not have venues called 'theaters'.  That's the US spelling.  Theatre is both the venue and the art form.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 29, 2012, 11:28:56 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."
Whoops!  I often use the spelling theatre.  According to my search online, theater and theatre do mean the same thing.   Are you getting different information in your searching?  Since I prefer theatre, I'd like to know.   
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 29, 2012, 11:32:28 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."

Um, so far as this Brit is concerned, there is no such distinction, and we do not have venues called 'theaters'.  That's the US spelling.  Theatre is both the venue and the art form.
I agree with this Brit.  What I read is that the USA does theater and most other places do theatre.  I'm in the US but prefer theatre.  I just like the way it looks.  I notice that this spell check doesn't recognize theatre, but does theater. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 29, 2012, 11:34:40 PM
Regardless and Irregardless.  I don't think there is such a word as irregardless, or at least it is considered mostly as incorrect. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 29, 2012, 11:38:31 PM
Another verbal tick that I hate in print:  "Jus' sayin'."

It sounds very low-class.
I hate that, too.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: starry diadem on October 30, 2012, 03:29:06 AM

Quote tree snipped, because it was getting ridiculously long

I agree with this Brit.  What I read is that the USA does theater and most other places do theatre.  I'm in the US but prefer theatre.  I just like the way it looks.  I notice that this spell check doesn't recognize theatre, but does theater.

British English tends to retain the spelling of the language from which we stole the word -  theatre, centre, litre, metre for example all retain their original French letter order.  In the US, spelling became more standardised and simplified.  And of course, the story goes that Noah Webster had a political point to make about trying to separate US and British English to underscore your break from colonial rule and deliberately changed the spellings of many words to reflect that. 
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: GreenHall on October 30, 2012, 08:16:13 AM
Heard this on the radio this morning (NPR of all places).  I know it was a case of the first part of the first word getting dropped, I translated, and yet still, I heard...

'snot ('snot likely to matter...blah blah blah politics/Sandy)

I've seen this in books, dialog for young or uneducated characters, if I never hear it again in real life, it's still too much.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 30, 2012, 09:49:51 AM
More gems from my latest project:

Everyone "turned and (did the next thing)." Why can't they just DO something once, rather than turning first? No one, in a quote, asks a question that ends with a question mark.

Something torn apart (metaphorically) was "rent."

Anything that's not concrete or obvious is "some kind of" something.

Every heart "beats very hard inside of his chest," everyone "stares deeply into (someone's) eyes silently," every pain is "deep inside of (his) gut." Every thought is "thought silently." Memories are always "flashing like photographs through (his) mind."

I don't actually hate cliche, but this is incredible.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: stitchygreyanonymouse on October 30, 2012, 11:28:28 AM
Just curious, what is wrong with describing something torn apart (even metaphorically) as having been rent? That’s one definition of that word / is the past and past participle of "rend".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Giggity on October 30, 2012, 11:29:17 AM
Once every so often is okay, but every time?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Bijou on October 30, 2012, 12:16:04 PM
My husband dislikes the term, "Me, too!"   He thinks the proper phrase is, "As do I."
I think the 'As do I." sounds kind of aloof and formal, but I appreciate him for knowing about 'lay' and 'lie', which leave me stymied every time.

I think I have a handle on who/whom, neither/either and affect/effect, though.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 30, 2012, 12:32:52 PM
My husband dislikes the term, "Me, too!"   He thinks the proper phrase is, "As do I."
I think the 'As do I." sounds kind of aloof and formal, but I appreciate him for knowing about 'lay' and 'lie', which leave me stymied every time.

I think I have a handle on who/whom, neither/either and affect/effect, though.

I'm with you.  "As do I" sounds (to be honest, to my ears) like one is putting on airs.  It would be like insisting during scrabble for your partner to tell you "inform me as to your paternal parental identity!"
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 30, 2012, 12:52:53 PM
Just curious, what is wrong with describing something torn apart (even metaphorically) as having been rent? That’s one definition of that word / is the past and past participle of "rend".

Sorry, woke up way too early this morning. It was actually a wreck (not wrack) vs. rack issue! Guess I should cut the writer some slack, too!

Most of the phrases are OK once or seven times, but "said simply" and "thought silently" were used about 100 times each.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Diane AKA Traska on October 30, 2012, 02:19:18 PM
Just curious, what is wrong with describing something torn apart (even metaphorically) as having been rent? That’s one definition of that word / is the past and past participle of "rend".

Sorry, woke up way too early this morning. It was actually a wreck (not wrack) vs. rack issue! Guess I should cut the writer some slack, too!

Most of the phrases are OK once or seven times, but "said simply" and "thought silently" were used about 100 times each.

How do you think noisily?  Hum Amazing Grace as loud as you can while trying to decide what to have at the fast food counter?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on October 30, 2012, 02:22:01 PM
My husband dislikes the term, "Me, too!"   He thinks the proper phrase is, "As do I."
I think the 'As do I." sounds kind of aloof and formal, but I appreciate him for knowing about 'lay' and 'lie', which leave me stymied every time.

I think I have a handle on who/whom, neither/either and affect/effect, though.

To me, "me, too" sounds lazy and grammatically incorrect. "I do, too", "So do I", "I am too" are all grammatically correct, short and direct.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 30, 2012, 02:43:28 PM
Just curious, what is wrong with describing something torn apart (even metaphorically) as having been rent? That’s one definition of that word / is the past and past participle of "rend".

Sorry, woke up way too early this morning. It was actually a wreck (not wrack) vs. rack issue! Guess I should cut the writer some slack, too!

Most of the phrases are OK once or seven times, but "said simply" and "thought silently" were used about 100 times each.

How do you think noisily?  Hum Amazing Grace as loud as you can while trying to decide what to have at the fast food counter?

I can only guess, but I think it was supposed to indicate a distinction between expressed and unexpressed thoughts.

"This writer doesn't know the difference between a Cossack and a cassock," Jmarvellous thought, muttering under her breath.
"Oh, dang, did I say that out loud?" she thought silently.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Elfmama on October 30, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
Just curious, what is wrong with describing something torn apart (even metaphorically) as having been rent? That’s one definition of that word / is the past and past participle of "rend".

Sorry, woke up way too early this morning. It was actually a wreck (not wrack) vs. rack issue! Guess I should cut the writer some slack, too!

Most of the phrases are OK once or seven times, but "said simply" and "thought silently" were used about 100 times each.

How do you think noisily?  Hum Amazing Grace as loud as you can while trying to decide what to have at the fast food counter?

I can only guess, but I think it was supposed to indicate a distinction between expressed and unexpressed thoughts.

"This writer doesn't know the difference between a Cossack and a cassock," Jmarvellous thought, muttering under her breath.
"Oh, dang, did I say that out loud?" she thought silently.
Do they know the difference between customer and costumer?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: #borecore on October 30, 2012, 04:49:03 PM
It didn't come up, but there was a lot of "make up that was applied," passively of course. "As" stood in for the far more appropriate "because" on every possible occasion. "And," half of the sentences began with "and" or "but" and a comma.

Four to six dots in lieu of ordinary ellipses? Great! Misspelling your own characters' names half the time? Thrilling!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 31, 2012, 12:41:03 PM
I don't know if this is a grammar quirk, but I've noticed that some phrases come out not at all like the words, but still people know what they mean...
"Imuhna eat then go to the show."  ("I'm going to (or I'm gonna) eat then go to the show."
"Wuhduhyuh think?"  ("What do you think?")
There are others I've noticed, but can't recall off the top of my head.  I oways think it's kyna of fascinating,  doenchu?

Going off at a bit of a tangent, as I tend to: this post made me think of something raised by Bill Bryson on his book on the English language.  At one point in the book, the author opines that this is actually the way in which people do generally and commonly speak: rapidly, with much slurring and swallowing of words -- "Jeetjet?" meaning "did you eat yet?", and other instances given. Bryson gives the impression here, that this is the common and usual way of speaking and conversing, for most people throughout the English-speaking world. My reaction was, "perhaps that's true of the USA, Bill; but it's not the way the large majority of folk usually speak in my part of the Anglosphere". Taking it that you, Bijou, are in the States; this generalisation as in respect of the US, would seem open to doubt too.

I feel ambivalently about Bryson.  He can often make one laugh, sidesplittingly; and can often be shrewdly "on the money" about a large variety of matters.  Also, though, he not infrequently spouts the most arrant nonsense; sometimes, it seems, in attempts to be funny -- sometimes, because he would appear genuinely to harbour some very odd notions.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on October 31, 2012, 12:48:16 PM
Since we're on the subject I hate when people pronounce that "thee-AY-tur."  It sounds so uneducated.

Well, Hilaire Belloc, in one of his comic-verse "Cautionary Tales", does indicate that pronunciation:

"It happened, though, a short time later,
 Her aunt went off to the theatre
 To see that interesting play
 'The Second Mrs. Tanqueray'."

Poetic licence, of course, in which the author gets a special pass: it has to be pronounced thus, in order to rhyme and scan!
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Slartibartfast on October 31, 2012, 03:11:43 PM
I'm all for poetic license, but I must take issue with rhyming things like

'Cause baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go "oh, oh, oh!"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: oz diva on November 01, 2012, 06:46:20 AM
Inquire vs enquire. I'd mostly use enquire as in if you are interested you may enquire. But our new communications person at work uses inquire. Which is correct?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Mental Magpie on November 01, 2012, 07:35:44 AM
I use inquire.

Ignorant means "without knowledge" not "rude".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: ClaireC79 on November 01, 2012, 09:07:36 AM
both according to this http://www.dailywritingtips.com/inquire-vs-enquire/
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Barney girl on November 01, 2012, 09:11:59 AM
I use inquire.

Ignorant means "without knowledge" not "rude".

That's interesting  - I only ever came across 'ignorant' being used for 'rude' when I lived in Yorkshire for a few years.  I'd always assumed it was a Yorkshire turn of phrase.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: lady_disdain on November 01, 2012, 10:00:33 AM
I use inquire.

Ignorant means "without knowledge" not "rude".

That's interesting  - I only ever came across 'ignorant' being used for 'rude' when I lived in Yorkshire for a few years.  I'd always assumed it was a Yorkshire turn of phrase.

I would imagine it is used as short hand for "ignorant of good manners".
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: cabbageweevil on November 01, 2012, 10:43:40 AM
I'm all for poetic license, but I must take issue with rhyming things like

'Cause baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go "oh, oh, oh!"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y

I agree -- if you're a normal-and-standard English user, that rhyme's awful. Can imagine the perpetrator maybe trying to save face by claiming to be writing in a tradition where perfect rhymes are not required.

I gather that Ireland offers an instance of this. Apparently in Irish Gaelic poetry, so long as the vowels rhyme, the consonants' agreeing in that way is somewhat less important. The Irish sometimes carry this convention over into when they're composing verse in English. Thus we have in the song about the Galway Races:

"As I roved out through Galway town, to seek for recreation,
 On the seventeenth of July, my mind was elevated:
 There were multitudes assembled with their tickets at the station,
 And my eyes began to dazzle, and they go to see the races."

It would seem that around Galway at any rate, "races" is regarded as a perfectly good rhyme for "elevated".



Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: scotcat60 on November 02, 2012, 09:29:31 AM
My husband dislikes the term, "Me, too!"   He thinks the proper phrase is, "As do I."

This reminds me of those scenes in films where on character says to the other "I love you" and gets the reply "Me too" which sounds to me like the second person is saying that they love themselves. What's wrong with  "I love you too" ?
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: SingActDance on November 05, 2012, 01:30:29 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."
Whoops!  I often use the spelling theatre.  According to my search online, theater and theatre do mean the same thing.   Are you getting different information in your searching?  Since I prefer theatre, I'd like to know.

Yes, I should have made the distinction between US and British spellings. Truly, I prefer "theatre" in all cases, whether talking about the venue or the art form. But I recognize that in the US it's common to use "theater" when referring to the physical building. I just hate when people use "theater" to describe the art form.
Title: Re: Grammar quirks
Post by: Onyx_TKD on November 05, 2012, 01:56:06 PM
NO the theatre is where you have your operation, the surgery is where your GP practices

No, the theater is where you go to watch movies.  :D

No, the theatre is where you go to see live plays.  The cinema is where you go to watch films.

Ah, the joys of a common language.

The one that gets me is the difference between theater & theatre. Theater is the venue, theatre is the art form. I hate when people write that they want a career in theater. I'm thinking, "Great, we need somebody to clean the lobby."
Whoops!  I often use the spelling theatre.  According to my search online, theater and theatre do mean the same thing.   Are you getting different information in your searching?  Since I prefer theatre, I'd like to know.

Yes, I should have made the distinction between US and British spellings. Truly, I prefer "theatre" in all cases, whether talking about the venue or the art form. But I recognize that in the US it's common to use "theater" when referring to the physical building. I just hate when people use "theater" to describe the art form.

Can you tell us your source for this distinction? Or are you just stating your own personal quirk? It sounded like you're saying this is an established difference in definition, but I've never heard of this distinction and haven't found it in the dictionaries I've checked, either.

Merriam-Webster, for example, defines "theater (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theater)" as both the physical venue and
Quote
4a : dramatic literature : plays
b : dramatic representation as an art or profession : drama.
It has no separate definition for "theatre." It simply lists "theatre" as a variant of "theater."

The Oxford English Dictionary likewise defines both the physical venue and the art form within the same entry, labeled "theatre | theater (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200227?rskey=WrVwlp&result=1#eid)." I did not see any indication that there was  distinction in meaning associated with the spelling.