Seems like someone’s forgetting their Dante. Hint: ninth circle.
“Ain’t no man can avoid being born average, but there ain’t no man got to be common.” –Satchel Paige
Actually, according to James Kilpatrick (in his newspaper column, don’t have the exact cite), it’s perfectly acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition (as long as you don’t leave a dangling participle) and to boldly split infinitives.
And thanks for the correction, Boris, Learn something new every day! “Fulsome” still gets my goat, though.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
johnnyharvard - it is not I who find who vs. whom difficult, but rather those persons for whom grammar is more of a challenge. Who are these persons? And with whom are they speaking when they confuse who vs. whom? Alas, they often are speaking to a person whom they wish to impress but who is only going to be taken aback at their verbal failings. Some of those persons might not even care who knows the difference between who and whom, while others who do care will know whom to direct their conversations to in the future.
Seriously, I think it is easy to tell when the relative pronoun is the object of the preposition, but harder for people to figure out when it is the object of the verb, especially if the pronoun is part of a subordinate clause. For example, “Give books to whoever wants them.” In my experience, lots of people think the pronoun should be “whomever” because it follows the preposition “to.” However, “whoever” is the object of the verb “wants.” The entire clause “whoever wants them” is the object of the preposition “to.”
P.S. I have read The Little, Brown Handbook cover to cover at least 10 times. I think that says something about me, and I’m not sure it’s good.
People who say “hot water heater”.
If the water is hot, why do you need a heater? It should be “water heater”.
I work with a guy who uses “viva” instead of “via”. It makes no sense at all.
Pardon me while I burst into flames.
“Flaunt the law” rather than “flout the law.”
Would you believe my local grocery store’s express check-out lane is correctly labeled “15 items or fewer?”
My pet peeve about people’s English isn’t grammar, but pronunciation: not pronouncing the first ‘c’ in Arctic or Antarctic. I’ve even heard Arthur C. Clarke make this mistake! Also it’s spilled over into other words. I once saw a hand-printed sign advertising “exoctic [sic] cat for sale.”
Also “nukyular” instead of “nuclear.”
…this is another Moebius sig…b!s sn!qaoW jay+oue s! s!y+…
(adaptation of a WallyM7Sig™ a la quadell)
For business reasons, I must preserve the outward signs of sanity. - Mark Twain
I am well aware that this is a gray area, but it really bothers me when people use “loan” as a verb. Lend! I won’t loan you my pencil, but I will lend it to you.
The dictionary says that this one is becoming accepted through widespread usage.
I am the conjunction junkie. I hate it when I see someone confuse your and you’re.
Man, that just makes you look stupid!
Likewise, correct use of
their, **there]/b] and they’re
is something that a lot of folks can’t seem to grasp. I don’t see what the big deal is, I really don’t. Is it really that hard?
Consider also the following:
Where is Jason at?
I don’t know where I’m at.
Where are you at?
All of the above should be changed to:
Where is Jason?
I don’t know where I am.
Where are you?
Ending a sentece with a preposition is usually a bad idea, but this is the one that really irks me. When did we start speaking in that ebonic shit that requires an “at” to end every sentence?
/Aside: There are few instances in which it has become acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition, such as “It depends on what you believe in.” as the “correct” sentence sounds a little stuffy: “It depends on that in which one believes.” I am not a grammar nazi, and as I mean to point out by this aside, sometimes the rules need to be bent. But some things need to be adhered to, otherwise it makes people sound like idiots.
And another thing!
What’s up with people saying “those ones” or “these ones”?
As in, “You don’t need to sort these ones, only those ones.”
???
That sentence, when said to me by a supervisor at a previous job, made me think she was a dumbass.
If she had said
“Only sort these, not those.”
It would have made more sense, and I would have had some respect for her brains after that.
Being well spoken is so important to me, and it seems like those of us who actually care are dwindling at an alarming rate.
I hope we can take a stand soon, to try and staunch the “dumbing of America.”
And don’t give me any of that "just because someone can’t write/speak well doesn’t make them dumb, and if you’re well spoken you aren’t automatically a genius.
No shit, but if you’re so frickin’ smart then you should be able to at least learn the basics of the language you bloody speak!
And if you are well spoken and can write an intelligent sentence consistently, then it demonstates a sharpness of mind, an attention to detail and an ability to grasp concepts that smack of a intelligent person.
Whoa! I kinda went off the deep end there!
Sorry.
You just hit on a nerve, one of my pet peeves.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
See what I mean? I bet this guy is really smart…
But if you had to go by the above sentence, what would your impression be?
Allah on a pokemon card, is it that hard to learn how to write properly?
Damn!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
I don’t mind the Quote - Unquote statement, as long as it is not accompanied by those stupid finger movements.
. . . or even type properly for some of you.
fewer vs less
hisself
I’ve already ate.
I don’t like it when dictionaries deem something acceptable only because it’s used incorrectly so often. Isn’t that a fallacy of logic.
This is really pissy, prissy and anal, but the frequent misuse of “hopefully” makes me wince, e.g. “Hopefully, it’ll rain today.”
Granted, it’s shorter than “I hope” or “it is to be hoped”, or even “I am hopeful”. But “hopefully” describes a state of hope, e.g. “‘Any more brownies left?’ he said hopefullly.”
But the one that really grates is “had went”.
Veb
Should impact be used as a verb? - The SDMB has impacted greatly on my free time vs. The SDMB has had a great impact on my free time.
I was taught that “impacted”, refers to a bowel, blocked, bulging and bunged up (M-W dictionary notwithstanding). So, when someone speaks of something having been “impacted” by this or that, I may not be empathic.
Which, of course, segues into another pet peeve - empathic versus empathetic. I think the latter is incorrect.
Not only does God play dice, he cheats!
“The exception proves the rule” means the exception or the unusual situation TESTS the rule or assumption. If the rule covers unusual situations, then the rule is valid. If it doesn’t cover unusual situations, then the rule needs to be reviewed and revised or rejected. <----alliteration, not allusion.
“The exception proves the rule” does not mean an exception (or blatant contradiction) just shows the rule is really true so don’t bother me with any evidence that might challenge my preconceived notions.
Ack, this gets me so annoyed I can’t even express it properLY. <-------not so subtle support for the adverb hijack. Why do people have such trouble with adverbs?
inconceivable? i don’t think that word means what you think it does
Perhaps they’re actually saying could’ve and should’ve?
From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary:
So yes, I’d say impact is or can be used as a verb.
“I must leave this planet, if only for an hour.” – Antoine de St. Exupéry
Are you a turtle?
inertia:
Leaving aside the question of whether there may not be a slight problem with the punctuation of the second sentence, to say nothing of its redundancy, there’s nothing wrong with dictionaries documenting the actual usage of the language. While there are still dictionaries created with a prescriptive bent, most these days are intended to be descriptive, and a dictionary that ignores a common usage, however irritating that usage may be to those of us who care about the language and try to use it well, is not doing its job.
“Ain’t no man can avoid being born average, but there ain’t no man got to be common.” –Satchel Paige
My peeve is the misuse of “its” vs. “it’s” When I was a grader in grad school, I was one of those bastards that would take 5 points off for each misuse.
I blame that and the “your” vs. “you’re” on the populace’s reliance on spell check.
“Less is More” - Mies
“More or Less” - Venturi
“You don’t have to be a nucular scientist to know that it’s ‘foilage’!” —Marge Simpson
“His eyes are as green as a fresh-pickled toad,
His hair is as dark as a blackboard,
I wish he was mine, he’s really divine,
The hero who conquered the Dark Lord.”
This reminds me of when I was in college and we started using “from Hell” to mean great. It drove the Methodist-minister-in-training dorm monitor nuts.
Well Veb, I wouldn’t call it prissy or those other things, but your exception to that use of “hopefully” has me really curious. In fact, it give me the urge to counternitpick. I’ve had this argument on this site before, but I’ll give it another go.
When someone says, “Frankly, I’m tired” do they mean that they are tired in a frank way? I mean, what exactly is happening in a frank manner? How about “I lied, frankly”?
“I certainly can’t guess your age.” Does this mean, I can’t guess your age with certainty? No, it means by no means can I guess your age.
George: “The reason you can’t teach a goat algebra, is that goats are better at geometry.”
Martha: “No, the reason you can’t teach goats algebra is that you haven’t given them a good enough foundation in basic arithmetic yet.”
Boris: "Come on, people. Algebra is simply too complex for a goat to learn.
Simply too complex? Complex in a simple way? Is that a contradiction in terms?
No. These adverbs are all disjuncts. They describe the manner in which the sentence is being expressed. With the bizarre exception of “hopefully” disjunct adverbs are perfectly acceptable to pretty much all English speakers. Rejecting “hopefully” as a disjunct adverb is not nitpicking, it is simply incorrect.
Screaming at a wall is, admittedly, futile.
It can also be very satisfying, particularly if it involves a lot of profanity.