[QUOTE=mnemosyne]
Irregardless. I know that one shows up here on the boards a lot, but it’s one that drives me crazy.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the one. Someone just used it in a meeting – three times – and made me twitch.
Also: “which” and “that” are not interchangable. “The cat that was run over…” vs. “The cat which was run over…”
“I could care less.” (I think you mean you couldn’t care less."
“It don’t matter.” (Yes, it does.)
Orientated. (oriented)
Commentated. (commented)
Quantification. (quantitation)
And Stevie Wonder, you are quite possibly the greatest songwriter of all time, but it’s “I am not one who makes believe” not “I am not one who make believes.”
Thank you.
[QUOTE=Lightray]
Also: “which” and “that” are not interchangable. “The cat that was run over…” vs. “The cat which was run over…”
[/QUOTE]
In that example, actually, they are interchangeable, according to common usage and many prescriptivists. cite. They’re not always interchangeable --'Which peeve were we talking about?" may not have “that” substituted for “which”.
My pet peeve? Folks who incorrectly correct my grammar. I’m not flawless, but I generally know what I’m doing. When someone half-remembers some rule that a 1950s poorly-educated English teacher taught them, that’s emphatically not my problem, and I resent their making it my problem.
I once wrote in a college assignment something like “Since Heinlein is such a terrible author, I would like to use his book as toilet paper.” The professor told me that “since” could not be used as a synonym for “because.” Uh, sorry, prof, but the crackpipe has gone to your head.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Ghanima]
“I could care less.” (I think you mean you couldn’t care less."
[/quote]
Shyeah, right! As if! Like I care what you think! I could care less, man!
Huh? It looks to me like quantification is a nineteenth century formation, whereas I cannot find a first-usage date for quantitation, but find that it is a back-formation from quantitative. Surely “quantification” is to be preferred, as it’s just a nounification of the verb “quantify,” and follows the rule of such nounifying perfectly–i.e., by adding “-ification,” you make the verb mean “the process of verbing.” I don’t know of a similar rule for turning an adjective into a noun.
Daniel
And Stevie Wonder, you are quite possibly the greatest songwriter of all time, but it’s “I am not one who makes believe” not “I am not one who make believes.”
Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ghanima]
And Stevie Wonder, you are quite possibly the greatest songwriter of all time, but it’s “I am not one who makes believe” not “I am not one who make believes.”
[/QUOTE]
I heard someone refer to “many point of views” recently. Also, it’s teaspoonsful, mothers-in-law, attorneys-at-law, etc.
My main one right now is the misplaced modifier, e.g., “At five years old, my grandmother took me to the circus.” You’re reading along, all set for the phrase to modify a reasonable subject and you are jarred by the incongruence (or laugh out loud) and have to recast your whole thought process.
And the non-parallel series. “The car is red, roomy and runs well.” ARGH!
“Me and Donna went to the mall.”
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! :mad:
“Donna and me went to the mall.”
“The mall went to Donna and I.”
AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!! :mad:
People who spell lose as loose.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
In that example, actually, they are interchangeable, according to common usage and many prescriptivists. cite. They’re not always interchangeable --'Which peeve were we talking about?" may not have “that” substituted for “which”.
[/QUOTE]
I refer you to The Element of Style, by Strunk and White (for which I find no on-line cite). As a reference specifically on grammar and style, I’d certainly accept it as a better authority than an internet dictionary. To paraphrase:
“That” is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, “which” the nondefining, or nonrestrictive.
“That” tells which cat is being referred to. Which cat? The cat that was run over.
“Which” adds a fact about the only cat in question. We are talking about the cat which was run over.
And, yes, I too have a peeve about people who incorrectly correct my grammar.
This is the first time I’ve either seen or heard “quantitation.” I’m in my mid 40’s, graduated from a respected research university, and worked as a CAE software engineer for 25 years.
I get really mad more at spelling or, well, I’m really not sure what you’d call most of my examples – mixing up what the words actually are when writing them. And a few spelling errors too. And when someone uses “and” at the beginning of a sentence. LOL
“would of” “could of” “should of”
“Congradulations” and I’ve even seen people write the short form as “Congrads!”
“for all intensive purposes”
Recently I even saw someone who wanted to keep their relationship “in tack”.
“truely”
My uncle and cousin use “unless” instead of “in case”, or maybe it’s the other way around. It’s really weird. (Oh, and people who spell it “wierd”, like my extremely intelligent husband.)
Lastly, and this isn’t really even a grammar thing, but I hate people who call someone by something that ISN’T their name. My friend Rebecca will always have people calling her Becky. She’s never gone by it in her life, yet people hear Rebecca and say Becky. When I tell people my daughter’s name is Anneliese, I immediately get asked “What do you call her?” Well, if I called her something else, I would have said that! There are lots and lots of examples of this.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
And Stevie Wonder, you are quite possibly the greatest songwriter of all time, but it’s “I am not one who makes believe” not “I am not one who make believes.”
Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
That’s poetic license.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
That’s poetic license.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the correct form would have actually worked better in the song, so that’s no excuse. He rhymed it with “green” btw.
I forgive you Stevie, but when I sing along I sing the grammatically correct version.
I didn’t do that! The quick reply screwed that up! The hamsters are malfunctioning!! Call the ham-bulance!
Unless you treat “make believe” as one semantic unit, that happens to have a space in its orthographical representation for historical reasons.
This is something I’ve noticed in the last year or so: people seem to need to include questions in their answers when they’re responding to a question.
I used to notice it only during interviews of coaches or GMs: “We know that our starting pitching is a weakness of the ballclub. Would we like it to be better? Yes.”
But now it’s moved out of the locker room and into the board room: “Our profits last year were up half a percent from 2004. Would we have liked those to be higher? Yes.”
If it’s a question to which the answer is obvious to everyone, then why ask it?
[QUOTE=Lightray]
I refer you to The Element of Style, by Strunk and White (for which I find no on-line cite). As a reference specifically on grammar and style, I’d certainly accept it as a better authority than an internet dictionary.
[/QUOTE]
It’s The Elements of Style, which I’m sure you knew.
The dictionary linked to is not “an internet dictionary” – at least, not like Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary are internet dictionaries. It’s the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, which started out life as a print dictionary compiled by real, live lexicographers.
Strunk and White, to put it bluntly, compiled a list of grammatical peeves that has little to do with actual grammar and English usage. The whole “that vs. which” argument has no basis in objective analysis of English grammar; the extent to which there’s an argument is based on personal prejudices.
The linguists on Language Log have done a number of posts on the myth, which is perhaps best summed up here by Geoffrey Pullum:
Hate it all you want – that’s the nature of a peeve, after all – but it’s not incorrect or ungrammatical or even nonstandard.
[QUOTE=gigi]
Also, it’s teaspoonsful, mothers-in-law, attorneys-at-law, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Your second and third examples are correct, but teaspoonfuls is standard, as are cupfuls, housefuls, and the like.
[QUOTE=Gordon Urquhart]
This is something I’ve noticed in the last year or so: people seem to need to include questions in their answers when they’re responding to a question.
I used to notice it only during interviews of coaches or GMs: “We know that our starting pitching is a weakness of the ballclub. Would we like it to be better? Yes.”
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been noticing a crapload of it ever since Rumsfeld started doing press conferences. Bugs me too. Say what you want to say! Stop trying to trick me into doing it for you!
[QUOTE=RachelChristine]
“for all intensive purposes”
Recently I even saw someone who wanted to keep their relationship “in tack”.
[/QUOTE]
Ooooh, I hate those.
I’ll add, “Taking a different tact.”
You might as well follow those misspellings with a footnote that says, “I have no idea what the actual words are because I’ve only ever heard these phrases because I don’t read.”