Sigh.
Piss off. You are contributing less than nothing to this discussion; you are a mosquito.
Dude, you starting a pit thread because you are filled with hysterical rage at the idea that someone doesn’t care as much about contractions as you do. I didn’t make you do it.
I didn’t know people were quite that sensitive about commas. Don’t cry. I’m sure commas like you, too.
That’s a warped meaning of misconstrue. Tell me, how does it feel to suck so badly at life or have you grown numb to it?
Just don’t mention parentheses, for the love of Mike.
One that always frosted me was boldly printed on the can of Pringles Potato Chips, the reduced calorie version.
“NOW WITH 30% LESS CALORIES”
Then about a year ago I noticed that someone there finally woke up, and had changed the “LESS” to “FEWER”. I’ve felt a lot better since then. And just today I noticed that they now say “25% LESS FAT”. So they’ve gotten it right the last two times.
And yes, I like those potato chips, so keep your comments to yourself.
BTW, from reading the posts on this board, I see that the confusion of ‘breaks’ and ’ brakes’ is not that rare an affliction.
Can you show me that they don’t? Those are all well known examples of where style manuals differ. If you dont know that, then you dont know shit about grammar and punctuation.
As far as “1970’s”
Wiki :* For this reason, some style guides prefer 1960s to 1960’s[49] (although the latter is noted by at least one source as acceptable in American usage),[50]*
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node21.html
British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates:
This research was carried out in the 1970s.
American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here:
(A) This research was carried out in the 1970’s.
You should not adopt this practice unless you are specifically writing for an American audience
Where did you come from? jsgoddess has been contributing here for almost a decade. You just joined this month, you’re not even a paid member.
No one would ever say “25% FEWER FAT”. Such a construction is genuinely ungrammatical.
Plenty of people would happily say “30% LESS CALORIES”, unaware that anyone would take offense to it. Because this construction is, in fact, not ungrammatical.
I’ll repost what I’ve posted a few times before about this persistent canard (including once in response to Inner Stickler, to my current surprise):
You have been taught, through presumably no fault of your own, an appallingly widespread but absolutely incorrect fact about the rules of English. Let me quote Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage (link to the relevant portion):
[QUOTE=MWCDEU, bolding mine]
Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: “fewer” refers to number among things that are counted, and “less” refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault – it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for “fewer”: “fewer” does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for “less”: “less” refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.
As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on “less”:
“This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think ‘Fewer’ would do better. ‘No Fewer than a Hundred’ appears to me not only more elegant than ‘No less than a Hundred’, but strictly proper.” --Baker 1770
Baker’s remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly – “I should think,” “appears to me” – his own taste and preference.
…
The OED shows that “less” has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great – he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin – more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially “less” has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language. After about 900 years Robert Baker opined that “fewer” might be more elegant and proper. Almost every usage writer since Baker has followed Baker’s lead, and generations of English teachers have swelled the chorus. The result seems to be a fairly large number of people who now believe “less” used of countables to be wrong, though its standardness is easily demonstrated.
[/quote]
A lot of examples then follow to back up the assertion that “less” used with countables remains, as it always has been, a perfectly standard usage.
So, basically, what we have here is a feature of English that has been thoroughly ordinary for more than a millenium. About two hundred years ago, some guy came along and expressed his own idiosyncratic preferences, but this never really took on with the English speaking public at large, and thus never really became a true rule of English grammar, though it ended up being codified nonetheless in an awful lot of wrongheaded usage guides, the sort which rarely bother to take a glance at reality. (Another choice quote from the excerpt: “This approach is quite common in handbooks and schoolbooks; many pedagogues seem reluctant to share the often complicated facts about English with their students.”)
And by “once”, I apparently mean “originally”.
I was young and foolish! Even my username is a constant reminder of my previous incarnation as a tough-talking prescriptivist, but I’ve learned, honest!
You’re in the Pit, anusbreath. Cope.
If you care so much about spelling, grammar, and punctuation, then I recommend you quit preaching and start practicing.
I Pit anyone who uses the phrase “swiftly herewith”.
Bullshit.
It might be lazyness. It might be a typo. It might be a person’s sorta of real time mental autocorrect where as they read the wrong word their brain automatically corrects to the right one and they don’t notice the wrongness of it. They might be typing phonetically and don’t give a shit. It might be a form of dyslexia where they know there is a difference but they can’t remember which one is which and they say “fuck it, I’ve got more important things to do than look that crap up yet one more time”.
I’d wager 99 percent of the time it is something like that. None of those are misconstruing anything.
That somebody here actually can not understand the difference between its and it’s?
Bullshit I say.
You wouldn’t recognize miscontruing if it bit you on the ass.
Ah. Paying for something that you can get for free somehow validates you.
Ooh, Wikipedia. That infallible fountain of all human knowledge.
I notice that despite your avowed familiarity with English style guides (to the point where you’ve observed how they all so wildly differ), you haven’t cited one.
While I’m awesomely spiffy and all that, being here for almost a decade is probably more horrifying than validating.
I do practice it. I also make errors, as does every other human being on the planet. The difference is that I’m aware I’ve made them.
And I don’t have to “cope” with people like you at all. As here or elsewhere, you can be ignored. Starting now. ('Anusbreath"–I didn’t know that there were any fourth-graders on this site.)
Assuming you meant to say “cannot”:
I did, in fact, think that no one here failed to understand the distinction. A few of the responses have made me suspect otherwise, though.
How does it feel to be a graceless douchebag? What is it about the internet that turns presumably decent people into vile, insult-spewing fucktards?
Note that I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I’m assuming your asshole internet persona is just that–a constructed persona. If your spewings and insults are a true reflection of how you interact with the world, though, I truly pity you.