# I pit people who have to constantly correct your grammar **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 29, 2007, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372 "2007-08-29T15:55:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/41 "2007-08-29T19:12:41Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Why? I’m probably more athi than you are. [/QUOTE] [nitpick] It’s spelled _athy_. [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![MovingTarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@MovingTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovingTarget)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/42 "2007-08-29T19:17:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote:Origanally posted by **Miller** > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Snipe1978 > > Not to sound too harsh here…but seriously, why the hell do some people feel that it is their solemn duty to always correct other peoples grammar or spelling? > > That’s a good question… > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by Snipe1978 > > And for the record, I’ve gotten in the habit of always running my posts through a spellchecker before submitting them in case of minor spelling mistakes. This board has made me paranoid about my use/butchering of the English language. > > And there’s your answer. uhh…what? how the hell is one an answer to the other? Because these people have made me paranoid about my spelling and grammer, they tend to correct spelling and grammar? please, explain ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/43 "2007-08-29T19:18:26Z")
[QUOTE=fachverwirrt] Was that a question? Did anybody doubt that this would turn into a grand nitpicking orgy? [/QUOTE] Heh, my intent really was to ask a question, not to pick nits or show off terminology or anything. When **Jodi** said it wasn’t an infinitive, I was very surprised at first, but then, after thinking about it, decided she was right. But I wanted to make sure I understood her correctly. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/44 "2007-08-29T19:19:53Z")
[QUOTE=Snipe1978] uhh…what? how the hell is one an answer to the other? Because these people have made me paranoid about my spelling and grammer, they tend to correct spelling and grammar? please, explain [/QUOTE] You have it the other way around. Because they hassle you about your spelling, you end up habitually running spellcheck to avoid the hassle. Mission accomplished in the nitpickers’ eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/45 "2007-08-29T19:20:20Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] Just to be clear, “correct” is a bare infinitive in that phrase, while “to” belongs to the modal auxiliary “have to”? [/QUOTE] I don’t believe “have to” is a modal auxiliary but yes, “correct” is a bare infinitive. My point is that the stucture is “[**have to**] correct” not “[**have**] to correct,” as is demonstrated by the fact that “have to” (not merely have) conveys the necessary meaning of “must” or “to be required”. That is also reflected when the bare infinitive is dropped but the “must” meaning is retained: “Do you have to go now?” “No, I don’t **have to**.” IOW, you don’t “split the infinitive” by separating “to” and the verb in such constructions as “going to [verb]” or “have to [verb]” “ought to [verb]” (“ought” being a true modal auxiliary) because the “to” goes with “going”, “have,” or “ought,” not with whatever the second verb is. “We are going to quickly leave” may not be the world’s most elegant sentence, but that is splits the infinitive is not a valid objection to it. Now, shall we argue about modal auxiliaries? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/46 "2007-08-29T19:22:19Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Now, shall we argue about modal auxiliaries? 🙂 [/QUOTE] Sure, might as well. 🙂 Why isn’t “have to” one? It seems directly analogous to “ought to”, or, for that matter, “must”. ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/47 "2007-08-29T19:28:55Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Don’t split your infinitives. [/QUOTE] People once believed that splitting the infinitive might cause a chain reaction, igniting the academic atmosphere and ultimately destroying the world of language. Nevertheless, grammarians secretly split an infinitive in a barren wasteland, despite uncertainty and possible peril. When they saw that the world did not in fact end, it ushered us in a new Hyperbatonic age. And now we reap both the rewards and the cost of that advancement. Our lives are certainly easier and require less of our dwindling energy resources, but we didn’t reckon on the lengthy half-life of slovenly speech, or the slow decay of structured sentences. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/48 "2007-08-29T19:37:44Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] Sure, might as well. 🙂 Why isn’t “have to” one? It seems directly analogous to “ought to”, or, for that matter, “must”. [/QUOTE] I think it depends on how tight-assed – properly hyphenated! – you want to be. The general rationale, AFAIK, is that “have” is not an auxiliary verb because it has an independent meaning (to possess). Thus, it is not a true auxiliary verb, which has no meaning without the second verb it is auxiliary to. You can use “have” in your standard SVO sentence; you can’t a true auxiliary verb such as should/must/ought. Now, it seems to me that the verb _phrase_ “have to” is very arguably a modal auxiliary _phrase_ – it has to be, right? – so I can’t get too worked up when people say “have” is a modal auxiliary in that construction. IOW, facetiousness aside, I wouldn’t argue against it either way, because it really doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/49 "2007-08-29T19:38:09Z")
[QUOTE=Snipe1978] uhh…what? how the hell is one an answer to the other? Because these people have made me paranoid about my spelling and grammer, they tend to correct spelling and grammar? please, explain [/QUOTE] I think **Miller’s** point is that people who are correcting your spelling and grammar are hoping to help you make fewer mistakes…and, if you are spellchecking to be sure you don’t get corrected, then they are succeeding! That is, they tend to correct your spelling and grammar because it makes you paranoid (that is, more concerned about making a mistake), and therefore you are more careful, and make fewer mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![MovingTarget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@MovingTarget](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovingTarget)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/50 "2007-08-29T20:01:50Z")
Well let’s just be all logical and shit. Man, how can I be upset now… _goes and hunkers down in his corner_…grumble, grumble… (sorry Miller) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/51 "2007-08-29T20:15:56Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] The general rationale, AFAIK, is that “have” is not an auxiliary verb because it has an independent meaning (to possess). [/QUOTE] At least [one dictionary](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/have) lists it separately as an auxiliary verb specifically in this context: “to be required, compelled, or under obligation (fol. by infinitival to, with or without a main verb): I have to leave now. I didn’t want to study, but I had to.” ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/52 "2007-08-29T20:30:02Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] I don’t believe “have to” is a modal auxiliary but yes, “correct” is a bare infinitive. My point is that the stucture is “[**have to**] correct” not “[**have**] to correct,” as is demonstrated by the fact that “have to” (not merely have) conveys the necessary meaning of “must” or “to be required”. That is also reflected when the bare infinitive is dropped but the “must” meaning is retained: “Do you have to go now?” “No, I don’t **have to**.” IOW, you don’t “split the infinitive” by separating “to” and the verb in such constructions as “going to [verb]” or “have to [verb]” “ought to [verb]” (“ought” being a true modal auxiliary) because the “to” goes with “going”, “have,” or “ought,” not with whatever the second verb is. “We are going to quickly leave” may not be the world’s most elegant sentence, but that is splits the infinitive is not a valid objection to it. Now, shall we argue about modal auxiliaries? 🙂 [/QUOTE] You make me hot. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/53 "2007-08-29T20:38:34Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] You make me hot. [/QUOTE] Finally, someone’s speakin’ English. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/54 "2007-08-29T20:45:55Z")
[QUOTE=Snipe1978] Well let’s just be all logical and shit. Man, how can I be upset now… _goes and hunkers down in his corner_…grumble, grumble… (sorry Miller) [/QUOTE] No worries! Next time your friend corrects you for saying “who” instead of “whom,” ask him what the weather is like in the 19th century. Then club him to the ground with a tire iron. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/55 "2007-08-29T20:47:42Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] Now, shall we argue about modal auxiliaries? 🙂 [/QUOTE] Sure! Right after I schedule 17 root canals for myself and some amateur eye surgery. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/56 "2007-08-29T20:49:23Z")
I think in most cases, people who correct grammar are trying to help. They’re trying to help you avoid annoying them again in future. ---
**Author:** ![Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7993a0/32.png) [@Jamaika\_a\_jamaikaiake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jamaika_a_jamaikaiake)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/57 "2007-08-29T20:54:03Z")
[QUOTE=MissTake] I will admit to doing this IRL. [/quote] Well, fucking stop it already. It is obnoxious. > [@](#): > > The Kid _always_ asks “Can I” rather than “May I” and it drives me bonkers. What, you don’t know that “can I?” can be used to ask for permission? Are you not a native speaker of American English? > [@](#): > > I also twitch when I hear people say “liberry” versus library and “liddle” versus little. So I just asked a sociolinguist, and she said that _every_ variety of American English (including the prestige dialect) uses a flap (like a ‘d’ sound) in “little”, so even for a prescriptivist, you are crazy. So, unless you are British or something, what the fuck? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/58 "2007-08-29T21:10:34Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] No worries! Next time your friend corrects you for saying “who” instead of “whom,” ask him what the weather is like in the 19th century. Then club him to the ground with a tire iron. [/QUOTE] It’s even worse when it’s the other way around. A person is trying to be proper, but doesn’t quite get it. So as not to disparage anyone in particular I won’t provide a link, but here is something posted in GD a couple of days ago. But whomever gets the nomination (and I doubt it’ll be Chertoff) is looking at a couple of nasty things…It’s like nails on a blackboard. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/59 "2007-08-29T21:30:55Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] It’s even worse when it’s the other way around. A person is trying to be proper, but doesn’t quite get it. So as not to disparage anyone in particular I won’t provide a link, but here is something posted in GD a couple of days ago. But whomever gets the nomination (and I doubt it’ll be Chertoff) is looking at a couple of nasty things…It’s like nails on a blackboard. [/QUOTE] It’s broken, no doubt about it. But if I may hazard a guess as to what was going through the author’s head, while it may just have been an editing error, a brainfart, or one of those “‘whom’ is more formal and proper than ‘who’ and should be used in any context where such an air is desired” things, I think it’s possible that what arose here was a confusion from muddily thinking about semantics instead of thinking about syntax as one should: while the syntactic role played by the “whomever” in that sentence is that of grammatical subject, I suspect the author may have been thinking of it in terms of a semantic role: if X gets the nomination from Bush, the thinking would go, then Bush is the main actor and X is just the target of his actions. This gets conflated into X being something like a direct object rather than the subject of the sentence (as in the semantically equivalent but syntactically quite different “But whomever Bush nominates…”), and thus we see “whomever” rather than “whoever”. Perhaps that’s a stretch, but that’s my theory. People should keep syntactic and semantic concepts clearly separated, but the layman doesn’t; it’s usually not a problem, as the layman isn’t doing much conscious linguistic analysis, but when trying to speak in an unnatural way, it may come up. ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372/60 "2007-08-29T21:42:50Z")
[QUOTE=Jamaika a jamaikaiaké] Well, fucking stop it already. It is obnoxious. What, you don’t know that “can I?” can be used to ask for permission? Are you not a native speaker of American English? So I just asked a sociolinguist, and she said that _every_ variety of American English (including the prestige dialect) uses a flap (like a ‘d’ sound) in “little”, so even for a prescriptivist, you are crazy. So, unless you are British or something, what the fuck? [/QUOTE] So I take it that she should stop because finding fault and correcting someone’s behavior are undesirable traits? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-people-who-have-to-constantly-correct-your-grammar/417372.md?page=4)