bring/take
I honestly don’t know if it is wrong, but I hate to hear people say “bring” in places where “take” better fits. “Will you bring me to the store?” as opposed to “Will you take me to the store.”
For me, bring has connotations of something is *there *and you want it here, where as take has connotations of something is *here *and you want it there. “When you come back, please bring pie.” “When you go to the SDMB party, please take pie”
It is a huge pet peeve of mine.
Sorry, I was a bit tired last night and not communicating very well.
In this case I was not clear, I did mean in the conditional sense.
I actually feel like I adapt a bit too well to regional language patterns and accents, to the point where I feel like the persons on the other end of a conversation may feel like I am making fun of them. However, words like *bein’s * still grate on me in writing.
You’re absolutely correct. I realized my mistake when I woke up in the morning but you phrased the proper use much better than I would have. Thank you!
My mother says this all the time, and whenever she talks about someone saying something it starts with “And he said, ‘yeah…’, he said (such and such)”. As if every single line ever uttered was said twice, with a “yeah” in the middle.
I passed by a “Laundramat” which advertised a “Tripble Load Special!” today :eek:
‘The thing is is…’
or
‘The trouble is is…’
It’s not that common, thankfully, but one of my pet peeves is to hear that someone is “chomping at the bit” or “chomping on the bit” instead of “champing at the bit.” The person is not trying to eat a bridle’s mouthpiece, s/he is just showing impatience.
Chomping, champing, what’s the difference? The image is of a restless horse doing exactly what you say the person isn’t doing!
Funny story. See, Strunk first wrote The Elements of Style while White was a student of his. Later on (possibly after Strunk died; I’m not sure) White edited it and published the new edition under both their names. He added the “that vs. which” rule at that point - and took it upon himself to “correct” every example in the text in which Strunk had “violated” his new imaginary rule!
So much for having respect for his elders.
The Elements of Style is of no use in this discussion anyway - it’s a style book, not a grammar text, which is why it doesn’t actually contain any grammar education. Do you see any phrase-structure trees in it? It’s nothing but a set of instructions to write in a formal style - and those instructions are, frankly, nothing but the personal preferences of a couple of rather crusty old men. If you’re citing The Elements of Style, it’s a sign that you don’t really know anything about grammar. If you did, you’d be able to identify the nonsense in that wretched little book for exactly what it is.
My understanding is that the rule was first articulated by John Dryden, back in the 17th century, in a criticism of a line in one of Ben Jonson’s poems. What apparently began as a bit of misplaced literary snark got enshrined as some sort of rule of English by the people who were, as you say, trying to remake English in the Classical mold.
Man is an animal that breastfeeds his young.
Oh my God! People speak differently in some places! It’s the end of the world!
It seems the people who most need an educating are right here.
I’ve only read Their Eyes Were Watching God (wonderful book, by the way) and the narration was in standard dialect, though the dialog was not.
Um, what? If you are “[whatever]”, then it seems like you’d use “because”, not “if”. I have to wonder where you got that in the first place.
Minus fifty points if your explanation involves the word “subjunctive”, as English barely has a subjunctive and “If I were” is not an example of it.
Most traditional grammarians would agree with you. In very formal English usage, you would indeed use the subjective case in that circumstance: “She has more money than I” and so on. But that sounds extremely odd and stilted in most situations; you use the objective case in ordinary speech in that particular spot: “She has more money than me”. The reason is that in that particular construction, people interpret “than” as a preposition, and thus follow it with the objective case. Of course, you can also put an entire clause after it: “She has more money than I do”.
It’s even worse than you state - there is no historical precedent for this distinction whatsoever. It’s something - like “splitting infinitives” - that was simply invented whole cloth by one of those people who has just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will follow it. I would say that the distinction between “fewer” and “less” has become sufficiently enshrined in standard English to be one of the characteristics of that particular dialect. But folks who go around bitching about other people’s “misuse” of the words are just showing off their ignorance. The distinction should be maintained in formal writing, but there’s no reason to follow that silly little made-up rule elsewhere.
I know I’ve heard this before - couldn’t guess whether or not it’s historically true - but it seems like an absolutely bizarre thing to get upset about. “Chomping at the bit” is vastly more common. Neither phrase is very transparent, and people treat both as idioms - phrases to regurgitate rather than analyze. “Champing at the bit” is absolutely incomprehensible to me - it’s either a rather archaic word or one that’s limited to some particular dialect or jargon. At any rate, it seems like a real non-issue to me.
I too find this annoying - and I am seeing it more and more often in published work (fiction to be sure, but still.) For my own edification, can someone remind me of the rule for this? I’m sure it was taught to me at some point, but I don’t recall. I just recall the usage.
One of my problems with these threads though, is that some of the issues people have complained about here could just as easily be typos. Who’s/Whose. I know the difference, but if I am typing quickly I may do it wrong. Heck, I often see *here *when *hear *is meant, but I always give the doper the benefit of the doubt and figure it is a typo.
In England I believe we would say “champing” rather more often, not that we drop “champ” (in this sense) or “chomp” into the conversation very often. But Tolkien put in into Bilbo’s mouth (in the riddle about teeth) with every confidence that his readership would not be overly taxed by the phrase “Now they champ”.
Howdy! If I’m not mistaken, you were one of those in that famous CONflict vs conFLICT pit thread. Was “grammar Nazi” yours? 
Of course language changes. But it would be nice if it didn’t tend toward the simplistic. I’m not saying that I’d like to see the florid style of the nineteenth century come back, but I would enjoy seeing a little more precision in langrage rather than a little less.
Uh oh! Did I start again? Forget I said anything! 
Do you think you could be a little more facetious or condescending?
Hold on here - I don’t think that The Elements of Style is the last word in stylistics, nor does it offer a complete grammar primer. Having said that, if more people were aware of the book, and followed the rules put forth in it, there’d be less annoying, and confusing, literature around.
If you say it’s a wretched little book again, I’m afraid that I’ll have to send my pet peeve to come and see you about arranging a duel. (May I suggest style books at 10 paces? I’d have preferred 20 paces, but I don’t think you’d want to use your preferred style book at that distance - it would be rather hard to get it to go that far without a catapult, I’d think. :D)
<Daffy Duck> “You’re, you’re . . . deshPICable!”
Would it really be that hard to include the names of people you’re speaking to instead of playing silly indirect games?
I’m not speaking to any particular Doper, most especially not you, but if you really must know, they are:
[ul]
[li]Ensign Edison[/li][li]Sarahfeena[/li][li]commasense[/li][/ul]
I assume you mean the Bambi-lance?
I’m sorry. I want you to know that I really tried there, but next time I’ll make sure I try even harder. 
Seriously, I meant that to come across a bit more as gentle poking than as cutting sarcasm. I need to start using smileys more often.
Okay, but I’m going to scour your posts from now on, and if you say “people” instead of “persons”, I’m gonna be all over you like white on rice. (Page 56, Third Edition paperback, MacMillan Publishing Co.) I’m so serious: Strunk and White claim that “people” shouldn’t be used as the plural of “person”. The most vague and general parts of their style advice are worthwhile, but when they get into specifics, you have to completely disregard half of the pronouncements they make, which makes it no guide for anyone who doesn’t have a solid mastery of writing style already.
Well, I have a tendency to open each post I intend to reply to in a new tab, which is part of the reason that when I come to a long multipage thread such as this one, I tend to reply to fifteen people in one long, several hundred word post. But not everyone does that, and it’s not necessarily for the best, as anyone who tries to read through a thread filled with my excessive verbiage can attest. It seems to me that Terminus Est simply replied to the general topic, which was raised earlier in the thread, without intending to argue with anyone in particular. Without having done what I do, it’s tough to go back through such a long thread and find the earlier messages you’re responding to.
If I were rich (but I’m not), I would buy a car (but I won’t).
vs
If I was around, she was always with me.
The first describes a situation contrary to reality, so it uses the imperfect* subjunctive tense to make that clear. The second describes a situation in the past, so it uses the past tense to show the past action. In English, with our relatively simple verb conjugations, our past tenses and imperfect* subjunctives look the same except in this one case. That leads to some confusion among us natives.
If you’re describing something contrary to reality, it’s “If I / you / he / she / it / we / they were”; if it’s a factual situation in the past, it’s “If I / he / she / it was”, and “If you / we / they were”. With all other verbs, the imperfect* subjunctive and the past use the same form.
*Imperfect subjunctive is what it’s called in the Romance languages. I’m not 100% on what it’s called in English, because I’m not a grammarian of any kind – especially with English. I just speak it.
In the second example, wouldn’t “when” be better to use than “if”?
“When” would work, but to me they don’t mean exactly the same thing. I can’t really put my finger on how they’re different, but they are. To me, anyway.
Upon further reflection, I think “when” carries a slight connotation of describing a situation that is more routine, whereas “if” describes something less common. However, you couldn’t use them interchangeably in a sentence like “When I worked there…” That has to be “when”, not “if”.
How about this one: “When she had a question, she’d usually look in the manual; but if I was around, she’d come to me instead.” That to me shows the difference I was talking about, but it’s a tiny nuance of meaning that may only be there for me.