# For bitching about language pedantry, other posters' language, and language in general **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 16, 2024, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135 "2024-06-16T22:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/361 "2024-06-28T19:27:58Z")
I’m not really mad, just irritated. I don’t think you realize what you are implying. You keep saying that you’re not implying that, but then you keep posting things that very much imply that. Whether you were thinking of me or not, you are painting with a very broad brush. Truth is, a lot of people with an excellent grasp of the written language play around with language a lot. You know, Shakespeare did a lot of that too. And a lot of his completely invented words became standard English. The willingness to experiment with language is a sign of creativity and intelligence, not degeneracy. > **[The Influence of Texting Language on Grammar and Executive Functions in...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816572/)** > > When sending text messages on their mobile phone to friends, children often use a special type of register, which is called textese. This register allows the omission of words and the use of textisms: instances of non-standard written language such... > To investigate this, 55 children between 10 and 13 years old were tested on a receptive vocabulary and grammar performance (sentence repetition) task and various tasks measuring executive functioning. In addition, text messages were elicited and the number of omissions and textisms in children’s messages were calculated. Regression analyses showed that omissions were a significant predictor of children’s grammar performance after various other variables were controlled for: the more words children omitted in their text messages, the better their performance on the grammar task. It’s almost as if, in order to use slang and textese, you have to understand the English language! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/362 "2024-06-28T19:53:28Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Truth is, a lot of people with an excellent grasp of the written language play around with language a lot. Sure!. Sometimes I do it, too. It’s fun! > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > The willingness to experiment with language is a sign of creativity and intelligence, not degeneracy. Definitely. But doing it successfully – meaning using neologisms that are strongly expressive and perhaps funny, or using words in unusual ways – requires a foundation of good writing skills and confidence in them. There is nothing in common between creative writing and bad writing. That, in fact, is the whole basis of the humour in the Bulwer-Lytton bad writing contest! The premise is a fictionalized version of what happens when terrible writers try their hand at creative writing. I was going to say an “exaggerated” version, but I’ve seen some examples of actual manuscript submissions, and some are just as bad and just as unintentionally funny as the jokes. ---
**Author:** ![carrps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carrps/32/2957_2.png) [@carrps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carrps)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/363 "2024-06-28T23:32:16Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > MFM: use of the word, “Guys” is wholly inappropriate in a mixed gender forum. In my dialect, “guys” is gender neutral. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/364 "2024-06-28T23:47:08Z")
I just saw this one: > Whomever is sent […] _Whoever_ is the correct word. My dream is _whom_ and _whomever_ finally disappear from the langauge. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2024, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/365 "2024-06-28T23:49:57Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > My dream is _whom_ and _whomever_ finally disappear from the langauge. I barely have any clue how to use those. There are some blind spots I have because I learned most of my English from reading and don’t recall much formal English instruction. I know “to whom” and “from whom” but that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/366 "2024-06-29T00:20:06Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I know “to whom” and “from whom” but that’s about it. Stick with those and don’t worry about it otherwise and you’ll be fine. Personally I find incorrect usage of “who” to be far less grating than misuse of “whom”. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/367 "2024-06-29T01:09:11Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I barely have any clue how to use those. Just remember the phrase, “Who is asking whom?” “Who” is the subject while “whom” is the object. Or put another way, “who” is doing it and “whom” is having it done to them. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/368 "2024-06-29T11:23:21Z")
I don’t mean to join the pile-on here, but this snip is a very clean and concise explanation of a circumstance that I think needs more yakyak … > [@wolfpup](#): > > This is the practice on the SDMB of interrupting a serious discussion with a one-word correction, the correction being subtly humourous precisely because of its performative pedantry and obvious uselessness. It’s nothing at all like the example you cited, which is genuinely sad and regrettable. What follows is NOT a lecture aimed at @wolfpup. It’s a rumination for us all, certainly including me, to think about. I will suggest that at one time 10 or 15 years ago, when the Dope was a much snarkier and more ribald place, that sort of sniping was indeed considered part and parcel of the game we all happily played. I will also suggest that, along with many in-phrases that are now past passé, past cliché, and into actively grating, that particular play has ceased to be part of _current_ board culture. We all remember it, but maybe we all don’t welcome it now as we once did. Someone continuing to prattle on regularly about 20 minutes or death rays or Opal’s fondness for threes isn’t even quaint; it’s stupid bordering on senile. It’s most assuredly tone-deaf versus the current culture here. I too enjoy reading a good goof and sometimes relish providing a corrective. But I feel the need to make a witty joke or a larger comment out of it. Not just “you did wrong”. And especially not “you did wrong, asshole”. As we all get older and crotchetier and new blood seems in thin supply, the place will get more formal, less flexible, and less tolerant. Maybe the community tolerance for drive-by pedantry has waned to the point it’s moved over the line from fun to microaggression / microtrollery. I’m not certain that’s true. But I’m also not certain it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/369 "2024-06-29T11:34:36Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > Just remember the phrase, “Who is asking whom?” > > “Who” is the subject while “whom” is the object. Or put another way, “who” is doing it and “whom” is having it done to them. That doesn’t always parse for many people, though. Consider: > I will give the prize to whoever crosses the finish line first. That’s the correct version. Quite often, I see the incorrect version: > I will give the prize to whomever crosses the finish line first. The rationale for that seems to be _whomever_ is the object of the preposition _to_. The thing is, it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/370 "2024-06-29T11:39:23Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > ETA2: Prescriptivism is more intuitive than descriptivism. Wolfpup has presented prescriptive-adjacent arguments and I think LHoD underestimates their effectiveness and utility. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “intuitive,” but it’s definitely true that “descriptivism” is just a less precise term for “science of linguistics.” The more that prescriptivists act like descriptivists are white-knighting language, the more they make it clear that they don’t even understand the argument. And for the love of God I teach children to write. It’s what they pay me for. I’ve spent nearly twenty years trying to persuade our district to teach more grammar, and to spend more time focusing on the mechanics of writing. None of that is what I object to. ---
**Author:** ![dirtball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dirtball/32/18772_2.png) [@dirtball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dirtball)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/371 "2024-06-29T11:52:14Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > > [@Atamasama](#): > > > > Just remember the phrase, “Who is asking whom?” > > > > “Who” is the subject while “whom” is the object. Or put another way, “who” is doing it and “whom” is having it done to them. > > That doesn’t always parse for many people, though. Consider: > > > I will give the prize to whoever crosses the finish line first. > > That’s the correct version. Quite often, I see the incorrect version: > > > I will give the prize to whomever crosses the finish line first. > > The rationale for that seems to be _whomever_ is the object of the preposition _to_. The thing is, it isn’t. I’m a copyeditor, and the explanation I’ll usually give, when one is needed, is to look for a verb you can pair with the “who/whom.” If you can find one, use “who.” If you can’t, use “whom.” For “I will give the prize to who(m)ever crosses the finish line first,” you can readily see that “crosses” is the verb you’re looking for. Or, you know, at least I hope it’s readily apparent. Of course, that doesn’t account for contexts where a correct “whom” is simply going to have a stuffy, overly formal feel. Or sometimes it just sounds wrong anyway. Seriously, would we have wanted to hear Bo Diddley sing “Whom do you love?” I think not. It’s okay to break the rules; just know why you’re doing it. But Ernest Hemingway was good with _For Whom the Bell Tolls_. ETA: That advice is not 100 percent foolproof. The answer may not always be apparent because sometimes prepositional phrases can throw you off. But I’m comfortable with saying it’s fine if you add “most of the time, you’ll get it right this way.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/372 "2024-06-29T17:58:47Z")
On the matter of “who” vs “whom”, several posters provided useful tips, especially @dirtball. As a broad generalization, I think one should follow the rules for using the correct case, but as already noted, there are exceptions if it sounds overly stuffy or pompous. My general rule of thumb is to use “who” as the default unless the objective case is clearly called for. The use of “whom” has in fact been declining for many years, though its frequency seems to have flattened around 1980. I was just thinking of an example where it’s best to abandon pedantry and just go with what sounds best. Consider this sentence: > With whom are you going to the dance? “Whom” is correct here. If one transforms the interrogative into a declarative (“I am going with **her** ”) one can see that the prepositional phrase demands the objective case. But consider the exact same sentence with just one word migrated to the end: > Who are you going to the dance with? It has the same meaning, the same words, yet almost no one would say “Whom are you going to the dance with?” even though this should technically be the correct choice. Why? My speculation is that it may be in part because putting the preposition at the end breaks up the prepositional phrase, but I think there’s a more important reason. I think it’s mainly because flipping the preposition to the end changes the tone, or register, of the question to a less formal one. In the less formal register, “whom” sounds incongruous and pretentious. I thought it was interesting. I welcome corrections if I’ve got this wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2024, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/373 "2024-06-29T22:45:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “intuitive,” but it’s definitely true that “descriptivism” is just a less precise term for “science of linguistics.” The more that prescriptivists act like descriptivists are white-knighting language, the more they make it clear that they don’t even understand the argument. According to my limited knowledge descriptivism is a less precise term for the _modern_ science of linguistics. I understand that English prescriptivist linguists once existed (they wrote grammar manuals) but that research program crashed and burned once they tried to operationalize their approach. (French and Spanish don’t have this problem: proper grammar is defined as what the Academy says it is. Easy peasy.) Cite: My memory, probably mangled, of past Pit threads. Because that’s where the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate typically goes. I’m a prescriptive-adjacent armchair grammarian (who struggles with spelling, punctuation, and grammar). Not as adjacent as wolfpup, but still. The study and presentation of English grammar that ignores a sense of _propriety_ constitutes an imperfect description of the English language. Those at the highly informed far end of the [linguistic pedantry chart](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/332) get it wrong. Because the world is not made up of compassionate and emotionally integrated eggheads: the world is made up of mid-wits. So those with subterranean levels of pedantry need to up their game and lay down the law a little. Because that’s what the mid-witted market demands. > [@wolfpup](#): > > The best way I can describe what **does** bother me is to say that it’s native English speakers who butcher the language because they’re fucking morons. The ones who “should of” done something. The ones who “literally could care less” about things. The ones who don’t know what apostrophes are for. The ones who don’t even know what words mean. I’m a native English speaker who uses “should of” and “should have” interchangeably and goddamn it I appreciate the correction. I have never been exactly deaf, but my hearing has always been iffy so I’m not surprised that I misheard this and internalized it over the years. “Should have” is just better communication and I hope to use it moving forwards. Furthermore, now that it’s been pointed out I have a _preference_ for should have. “Should of” is somehow irritating: as a native English speaker it offends my sense of propriety. It sounds wrong and is bad grammar to my ears, despite the fact that I used it routinely prior to a couple of days ago. That’s an example of the sort of prescriptivism that dedicated descriptivists need to take into account. > [@LHoD](#): > > And for the love of God I teach children to write. It’s what they pay me for. I’ve spent nearly twenty years trying to persuade our district to teach more grammar, and to spend more time focusing on the mechanics of writing. None of that is what I object to. I frankly consider thoughtful elementary school English teachers to be experts on the prescriptivist/descriptivist controversy: they are on the front lines after all. LHoD’s posts on this subject are consistently high quality. For example I have to agree that using grammar as a gatekeeping device is offense if sadly common. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/374 "2024-06-30T00:02:19Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > The best way I can describe what **does** bother me is to say that it’s native English speakers who butcher the language because they’re fucking morons. The ones who “should of” done something. The ones who “literally could care less” about things. The ones who don’t know what apostrophes are for. The ones who don’t even know what words mean. > > I’m a native English speaker who uses “should of” and “should have” interchangeably and goddamn it I appreciate the correction. I have never been exactly deaf, but my hearing has always been iffy so I’m not surprised that I misheard this and internalized it over the years. Apparently my use of the term “morons” has gone way beyond its intended bounds. I consider you to be one of our more thoughtful and erudite posters, and I owe you an apology if I inadvertently included you in the group I was denigrating. Obviously the linkage between what one hears and what one writes is more reflexive than I thought. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > “Should have” is just better communication and I hope to use it moving forwards. Furthermore, now that it’s been pointed out I have a _preference_ for should have. “Should of” is somehow irritating: as a native English speaker it offends my sense of propriety. It sounds wrong and is bad grammar to my ears, despite the fact that I used it routinely prior to a couple of days ago. > > That’s an example of the sort of prescriptivism that dedicated descriptivists need to take into account. Thank you for that concession, which really encapsulates my point. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And for the love of God I teach children to write. It’s what they pay me for. I’ve spent nearly twenty years trying to persuade our district to teach more grammar, and to spend more time focusing on the mechanics of writing. None of that is what I object to. I admire you for what you do, undoubtedly against repressive administrations in your political climate. At the risk of evoking more ire, however, let me once again try to lay out my position as clearly as I can. What you seem to object to, judging from your numerous posts on the subject, appears to be any criticism of people who don’t write the way that you teach your students to write. This argument isn’t about someone like me “not understanding language”. It’s about the inherent contradiction. Yes, **I understand the concept of different audiences, different registers** , and so on, but here’s the essence of my argument. These discussions often devolve into claims that people have a natural sense of grammar, that one might say “I ate the last remaining sandwich” but no one would say “Sandwich ate remaining last the I”. Arguments just like this have literally been made right here on this board (though not by you, AFAIK, but by other self-styled descriptivists). And it’s abject nonsense. The fact that we have a rudimentary sense of how to order subject, verb, and object doesn’t mean that everything everybody says is grammatical or even necessarily comprehensible. This is precisely why English teachers like you are paid to **teach** these skills. And based on your demonstrated sense of language I’m sure you do it very well. I sincerely mean that. But then you declare it to be unnecessary as long as you can decode whatever gibberish someone has pecked out on a keyboard. The real argument here, as illustrated very well by your quoted example of the poor old lady who just wanted to talk about gardening on a discussion forum and got slammed by rude idiots for her bad grammar, is to cool it with this sort of obnoxious bullshit. I’m fully on board with that. But being impatient in the general case with atrociously bad writing and what its prevalence says about how little value our society places on language skills is an entirely different matter and an entirely different discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/375 "2024-06-30T00:10:59Z")
Isn’t “should of” just “should’ve”? They sound exactly the same to my ear. I wouldn’t know, I usually say “shoulda.” At least when I’m being informal. That’s the point I’m trying to get across here - you can’t tell when you hear someone use this construction whether they are a drooling moron or an erudite word aficionado. You just don’t know. When I hear people trash this kind of language it just reminds me of the first time I landed at an elite university how people tried to correct my casual speech, which is basically their way of telling me that poor, rural students need not apply. And I was thinking “Fuck all y’all, I can write circles around you motherfuckers.” (I didn’t actually think that, I was a nice girl. But that’s how I feel looking back on it now.) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/376 "2024-06-30T00:23:39Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > which is basically their way of telling me that poor, rural students need not apply. And I was thinking “Fuck all y’all, I can write circles around you motherfuckers.” You should have / should’ve / shoulda said > Bless your heart! 😉   ---
**Author:** ![dirtball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dirtball/32/18772_2.png) [@dirtball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dirtball)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/377 "2024-06-30T00:31:29Z")
Reminds me of a joke that everyone here has probably heard. A guy from Alabama is admitted to Harvard. His first day there, he stops another student and asks, with an obvious Southern accent, “Where’s the library at?” The other student draws himself up in an indignant stance, looks down his nose at the Alabama guy, and says, in a world-class condescending tone, “This is Harvard. We do not end sentences with prepositions here.” The Alabama guy says, “All right, then. Where’s the library at, _asshole_?” (Side note: it’s all right to end a sentence with a preposition.) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/378 "2024-06-30T00:38:06Z")
> [@dirtball](#): > > (Side note: it’s all right to end a sentence with a preposition.) “alright” (Not really a satisfactory snark as “all right” is perfectly acceptable, but damn, I had to do **something** to demonstrate the SDMB spirit!) 😁 ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/379 "2024-06-30T01:01:47Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > You should have / should’ve / shoulda said You left out /should of. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2024, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/380 "2024-06-30T01:04:02Z")
Oops. Thank you! I’d like to claim that my prescriptivist language quality barrier prevented me from stooping so low, but if it did, it was a subconscious decision. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135.md?page=20)