Author Topic: Grammar quirks  (Read 45465 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5470
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #210 on: August 09, 2012, 02:11:55 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.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

Free Range Hippy Chick

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 766
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #211 on: August 12, 2012, 01:03:46 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]

squeakers

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1775
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #212 on: August 12, 2012, 03:49:44 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!)
"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin

lady_disdain

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5900
    • Contemporary Jewelry
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #213 on: August 12, 2012, 04:17:26 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.

jmarvellous

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3530
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #214 on: August 12, 2012, 04:20:52 PM »
Saw this one today and cringed: kind've.

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

pinkyblue

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #215 on: August 12, 2012, 04:34:34 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. 

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5470
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #216 on: August 12, 2012, 06:42:13 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. 
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12983
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #217 on: August 12, 2012, 07:19:36 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'.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #218 on: August 12, 2012, 07:50:48 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. ;)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #219 on: August 13, 2012, 09:59:14 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. 


EmmaJ.

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1417
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #220 on: August 13, 2012, 12:02:59 PM »
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!

Mental Magpie

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5470
  • ...for the dark side looks back.
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #221 on: August 13, 2012, 12:33:06 PM »
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.
The problem with choosing the lesser of two evils is that you're still choosing evil.

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6188
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #222 on: August 13, 2012, 03:15:43 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. ???
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #223 on: August 14, 2012, 10:52:45 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. 

 


squeakers

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1775
Re: Grammar quirks
« Reply #224 on: August 14, 2012, 03:26:06 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
"I feel sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." "It is so low, in fact, that Miss Manners feels sure you would not want to resort to it yourself, even in your own defense. We do not believe in retaliatory rudeness." Judith Martin