You’re correct, of course, but I always thought there should be two (and I don’t even work for a printer’s ink manufacturer!).
*I don’t think any of you have any real understanding of the beauty of language at all. Why don’t you talk to somebody who has had a stroke and spent years having to learn to write or speak again, and bitch to them about your hangups with homonyms and apostrophes? *
Aw, chill, hazel-rah. You’re comparing apples and asteroids here, I think. I doubt that even the most fanatical of us grammar-fusspots would suggest that these particular finicky rules are as important as the whole concept of human language itself.
It’s just that human language is a game that is played—apparently, by all of the societies who play it—with some one of these sets of finicky rules known as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and pronunciation. Don’t blame us; we didn’t invent the distinction between the subjunctive and the injunctive, or the rule about subjects agreeing with verbs in number and gender, or any of the other “silly trifles” that you so despise. That’s just how the language game is played; the rules evolve, and from the moment individuals first learn to speak, they are learning the rules and checking their own language use and that of others against the rules. And during the individuals’ lifetimes, the rules continue evolving.
You’re kind of in the position of someone scolding a concert audience for complaining that the violins are playing out of tune, on the grounds that micro-intervals are a legitimate part of many musical traditions and that the beauty and uniqueness of human music-making is bigger than mere adherence to some arbitrary and culturally contingent scheme of frequency synchronization. Yes, yes, dear, we know. But the point is that these musicians are supposedly playing “the music game” according to this particular set of culturally contingent rules, and while we’re using those rules as aesthetic guidelines, it’s reasonable to complain about deviations from them. (Of course, when artistic pioneers deliberately exploit such deviations to create a new style, you get to laugh at the conservatives as philistines; fair enough.)
Similarly, we’re taking as our aesthetic guidelines the rules of so-called “standard English”, and kvetching about the people who are supposedly playing the language game by those rules but inadvertently screwing it up. Naturally, people like stroke victims who have special problems with respect to these rules are not appropriate targets for that kind of kvetching, so you can turn down the flame of your righteous indignation.
Nevermind that you are just parroting the same “I am so smart” grammar cliches that have been around for more than a hundred years
Dear, if you think that nitpicking other people’s grammatical errors is a phenomenon only of the last hundred years or so, you could use a little ignorance-fighting on the linguistics front yourself.
It seems like people figure that if they don’t know what is correct, they should put whatever is the most complicated, which is the exact opposite of what they should. If you don’t know whether it’s who or whom, use who! If you don’t know whether something takess an apostrophe, don’t put one in! I’d much prefer having to deal with “its” all the time than having to deal with an apostrophe in front of every “s”.
Monty:
Are you saying that it should be “whoever”? It seems to me that it’s the object, and therefore should be “whomever”. Which would you say is more grammatically correct" “Give it to he that shows up first”, or “Give it to him that shows up first”?
hazel-rah
But often it’s not good enough. I often start to read a sentence, and half way through I realize that I’m parsing it wrong because someone used the wrong word. It’s annonying and it interrupts the flow of reading. I shouldn’t have to figure out from context what you’re trying to say; you should actually say it.
As I said in that post, the entire phrase is the object; however, the word “whoever” is the subject of the phrase. As such subject, it must be in the nominative case.
Neither. I would say “Give it to he who shows up first” is correct.
Sorry, Hazel-rah, but I must take issue with you calling me a fucking idiot because about half the people I encounter of a day want to arbitrarily stick puncuation marks into my surname.
Polycarp, of course, I was using “Fries” as an example, but even then I doubt any of these people have read Heinlein. In fact, I would venture a guess that alot of them have not read. Anything.
No, no, no… it’s much preferable to your wacky and zany yank ways… “color” indeed…
I try to maintain good grammar, but I can never remember how to apply “which/that” or “whom/who” in a sentence… especially not when actually talking as opposed to writing. As long as people try their best… but people trying to sound smart by using “I” all the time instead of “me” (would you like to come with Bob and I?) etc just sounds pretentious.
Hey, that’s far better than “gaol.” HTF do you get “jail” out of that?
Nope. They just sound stupid.
my hate is ‘off of.’
such as, ‘that song “nightswimming” off of the album automatic for the people’
stupid, stupid, stupid.
lowercase letters used intentionally for aesthetic purposes.
any grammatical or spelling errors are typos. really. ya gotta believe me.
zweisamkeit. we must have had the same 4th grade teacher. I discovered that teachers don’t like it when an 8-year-old proves them wrong.
What’s the deal with ensure/insure? Aren’t they usually interchangeable?
My theory on the inappropriate quotation marks is that it’s often done by immigrants. I’ve noticed signs written that way in other countries, particularly Latin America.
I’m not as anal as y’all, so I don’t care if this contains mistakes. I’m not even going to preview!
I hope you are aware that in this context prove has retained its original meaning of test. Thus a rule that has an exception is not a rule.
I didn’t say you were wrong…just incomplete. You said if it’s more than two entities, use “among.” As a rule, that’s not exactly correct. For your example it works, of course. But as a blanket rule, it’s not complete, as per the example of when the entities denote the limits of a range: “They searched the area between the river, the farmhouse, and the woods.”
You may have had this in mind, but I’ve heard people over-applying the “between” for two and “among” for more than two rule. For example, “The bomb fell between the three houses” has quite a different meaning than “The bomb fell among the three houses.” Also, “The relationship between the three branches of government” is quite correct, as well.
this web site will actually contradict your statement. It says “I must choose between three colleges” is correct, since it is used as a comparison. I happen to think “I must choose among the three of them” sounds strange.
To your credit, most grammars I’ve been able to find support the two=between, more than two=among. I just believe this rule is incomplete, if not incorrect.
We have a new(ish) store in town which sells CDs and the like cheaply.
Curiously though, all the signs in the store are in quotation marks, including the prices.
The temptation to go up to the desk and ask how the real price differs from the apparent price is overwhelming.
Since this is still going, I may as well jump on the nit-wagon.
Excuse me? What heck is wrong with adding an apostrophe (or an apostrophe plus an s) to singular words ending in s?
Eg, an apostrophe plus the s to singular words of one syllable:
[ul][li]my dog’s dinner[/li][li]the bus’s wheels[/ul]Or, an apostrophe plus an s or an apostrophe only to singular words of two syllables.[/li]
[ul][li]Thomas’s or Thomas’ dog[/li]The circus’ tent or the circus’s tent[/ul] That’s without even getting into the trickier ones like “Jesus’ robe”, “Moses’ staff”, or three syllable singular words.
I tried Dictionary.com, and maybe I’m just not doing it right, but I can’t find an answer to my question, so I pose it to the Dopers.
Is the correct usage “a while” or “awhile”? It might sound like a no-brainer, but I see both terms used on a semi-regular basis by (supposedly) educated people, and I have never known which was correct.
Also, as far as the apostrophe complaints - RIGHT ON! I couldn’t agree more. Which leads me to my pet peeve: “I could care less.” If you could care less, why don’t you? Is it that difficult? Shouldn’t the expression be “I couldn’t care less”?
-Dirty
Listen to the tone of “I could care less.” Then listen to the tone of “I couldn’t care less.” Notice a difference? The tone of “I could care less” is one of sarcasm. It is not a statement meant to be taken literally. Then, of course, there is the complaint about “Head over heels in love.” Shouldn’t it be “Heels over head?”
“Awhile” is an adverb. “A while” is not. You cannot use a preposition before “awhile.” So “stay awhile” but “stay for a while.”
Also, since I’m here again anyway, I checked my teaching English grammar book (How English Works, A Grammar Practice Book, published by Oxford University Press) and it states that “among” is used with “a group, crowd, or mass of things that are not seen separately”, whereas “between” is used with “two or more clearly separate people or things.” So, once again, for your example, “I couldn’t choose between Tom, Dick and Harry” this usage would be correct. Not only that, but this definition seems to reflect usage as I hear it, and as I intuitively understand the difference between “among” and “between.”
Oh, and though this is the Pit, I’ll provide a couple of sites for the “couldn’t care less”/“could care less” controversy:
American Heritage Book of English Usage
Here’s Steven Pinker’s exaplanation (which I had in mind.)
Thanks for the clarification. The sarcasm thing never even crossed my mind. And since I was looking for a reason to use this smiley anyway, I guess now would be the time to say I feel like a total :wally
And thanks for clearing up the A while/awhile debate, too. It was driving me nuts. 
-Dirty
Good God. Comprises and is composed of. My company recently sent out a news release in which a sentence read something to the effect of, “The company is comprised of sales and tech support.” Gah!
I argued with my boss about that for an afternoon, and the incorrect version went out. Damn.