I’ll mention without naming names that several in this thread have perpetrated my pet grammar peeve: placing the period or comma outside the quotation mark. An example of this incorrect application (not from this thread): Bill was seen last night checking into the Moonglow Motel with his “wife”.
These punctuation marks are always to be placed within the " where they’ll be safe from the dangers of the outside world (semi-colons and colons are on their own and should be situated outside the quotation mark).
If anyone detects a grammar error in this post, please keep it to yourself since it’s obviously a matter of style in my case. Pointing out an error would be bad form and not in any way a delicious irony.
By the way, shouldn’t people who are pissed off by the “pickiness” of grammar debates stay clear of threads with titles such as this?
Effect can also be a verb, but it’s not used in quite the same way as affect. Affect can be a noun, but with a completely different meaning only really used by psychologists to describe intense non-cognitive feelings (or Shakespeare in lieu of ‘affection’).
The thunderstorm affected our picnic plans.
The thunderstorm effected a cancellation.
The effect of the thunderstorm was a cancellation.
Mary’s effective affected reticence affected her shrink’s study of the severe affect which effected her ineffective flight of the Thunderstorm’s effect.
Let’s not forget the glorious use of apostrophes to indicate decades, such as “the 60’s”, “the 70’s”, etc.
2sense, “let’s” as a contraction of “let us” IS supposed to have an apostrophe. Trust me.
Auntie Pam, (and anybody else who’s interested), the real Ruffian was a famous racehorse, a prize-winning filly who unfortunately broke her leg during her last race and had to be put down. There’s at least one big-time race named after her, the Ruffian Stakes.
Somehow I always visualize Ruffian the Doper as sitting there typing with a cast on her leg.
In what context? Did you publish these documents yourself, or did you submit them to someone else (who edited them) to be published? Do you mean you’ve never had anyone point out any errors during the editing process? Or did you just ignore them and tell them that it was “just their opinion”? (I know, I know, the question mark is outside of the quote. But the quote wasn’t a meant as a question…or something…oh, never mind.)
No one is exempt from the grammar and spelling error. The few times a document I’d written was edited by someone else, I absolutely cringed. Run-on sentences, misspellings, you name it. (Especially the run-on sentence! ;)) I am not here proclaiming spelling and grammar perfection…everyone here would laugh at such a thing. But what amazes me is that there are some very simple grammar/spelling things that people are not understanding how to do correctly. The misuse of the apostrophe (and that pesky “loose - lose” confusion thing) is becoming an increasingly common error. And it should be STOPPED, dammit! Hence this thread.
For me, what a person has to say is more important than how he say’s it. Frankly, my dear, I dont’ give a rat"s’ derrie’re whether or not he has all the quotation "mark’s and “apostrophe’s” in all the right “p’l’a’c’e’s’” not to mention semi;colon’s;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Though I consider myself a grammar liberal, tending more towards descriptive rather than prescriptive grammar, the orthographical errors that occur when using an “s” do annoy the hell out of me. It seems that everyone want to put a freakin apostrophe wherever they see a terminal “s.” “Black cat’s for sale.” ARGHHH!!
I do like the aproach toward punctuation minimalism. 60s and 70s looks much better to my eyes than 60’s or 70’s, although I would not consider either to be incorrect.
(Then again, AP would prevent me from starting a sentence with “60s.” – “Sixties” instead.)
My peeve occurs when I see “it’s” for “its,” even though it makes perfect sense to me why people write it as “it’s.”
“Loose” and “lose” drives me up a wall, too. It’s not that difficult to get right, c’mon!
What I hate even more are rules such as “don’t split an infinitive” or “avoid dangling prepositions” and, as Danielinthewolvesden pointed out, “don’t use double negatives.” These are completely stupid. They are of no use whatsoever. I’ve mentioned some of these in another thread, but, here are some of the points again:
Split Infinitives - DUMB DUMB DUMB RULE!!! A split infinitive is absolutely OK. There is no reason not to do so, and if you follow the rule you can quickly sound like some dated grammar geek: “To go boldly” or “to boldly go”? Absolutely nothing confusing about the latter. The rule exists because English was trying to follow Latin grammar rules, and in Latin you couldn’t split an infinitive. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS ONE WORD!!!
Dangling preposition. I believe this rule exists because the word “preposition” means it must come before something, and if it doesn’t, well, that just creates a grammatical paradox that will upheave the very fabric of our universe. Gimme a break. “Who are you going to the store with?” Anybody confused as to what this sentence means? Anyone? Sounds much better than “With whom are you going to the store?” Who uses “Whom” anymore anyway? Unfortunately, I can’t think of a better example, but I know when I try to adhere to this rule I come up with the most complex, stuffy sentences I’ve ever heard. BLEH!
Double negatives. As Daniel mentioned, langauge isn’t algebra. When I say “I don’t have no money” does anyone really think I’m trying to say “I have money.” This rule comes from an age where grammarians were trying to apply rules of math and logic to language. Well ya know what? Many, if not most, natural languages REQUIRE a double negative.
I wouldn’t respond to such a dumb-ass question with such a smart ass answer, but this being the pit…
There IS an apostrophe in let’s, unless you’re an idiot.
Just when you think that you have discovered something that everyone must surely know, you’re up and proven wrong.
NOW
On the other hand, there are members of this so called Grammar Police who have their heads in their asses. Or their head in their ass, whatever, it depends on how you look at it.
Some of them will try to tell you that if you feel disgusted because of something and are about to be sick, and you say:
“I feel nauseous.”
that you are wrong, and that you don’t feel nauseous, but are feeling nauseated. BUZZZ! Wrong!
While they may be right that you are feeling nauseated, they are mistaken about you being wrong in what you said.
Consider the following:
There are so many other things that self styled english professors and grammar police will try to shove down your throat. Pay them only skeptical mind.
What you must understand (commence throat shoving) is that while language is not algebra, there are rules.
There is a difference between someone who is exercising conscious control and exhibiting a great command over the the english language and the dipshit who
a) doesn’t know any better, also known as “Ignoramous Innocentus”
b) doesn’t care and thinks that they’re right no matter what, also known as “Ignoramous Moronus”
c) is just plain stupid, like a human cow, also known as “Putz.”
An individual who exhibits clear control and masterful command over the english language (example: see SingleDad or WallyM7) can take some liberty as they obviously know what they hell they are doing.
An individual who has (ever) posted anything to the effect of “Im the big bad booty daddy!” deserves to have a dictionary shoved up their ass… an old one.
The point is, yes, language is fluid, it flows and changes and mutates.
BUT
We don’t want person of type b to make these changes for us. There needs to be structure, uniformity, so as not to result in a breakdown of communication. Which leads us to my next point.
A lot of you are bringing up that when someone says something, even if technically incorrect, they are not misunderstood. Of course not. And I had such high hopes for your membership in the “I have at least half a brain” club.
The grammatical debate isn’t whether someone is misunderstood when they speak, as “your” and “you’re” sound identical except for context. The debate is whether or not it makes for a sentence to be less understood, if there is the potential for a breakdown in communication in writing, retards. Or at least it should be. Basically, it boils down to this:
Shud we chuck gramer out the window and rite fonetikaly (or phonically, they mean the same thing in this context, so pick the one you most prefer) and not wury about it enny mor?
Or should we keep on changing the rules to adapt the language to better accomodate the vernacular?
That is the question. So all you folks who bring up the phrase
“I don’t got no money”
to defend poor grammar sound as stupid as the person who is actually saying it.
So to sum up:
There are no hard and fast rules, as they are all subject to change some day or another.
however
We can’t change them ourselves as we see fit
since
If we did, it would probably result in a breakdown of the language.
There can be slang, there can be a style of speaking, but we all need some common ground to stand on.
yosemite: I had a game review column in a gamers mag. I was listed as a writer, assoc. editor and contributor (at different times) for an “adult” Newspaper. I have written Gov’t Manual Sections (and there is weird writing). I have written reports for our Grand Jury. And, yes, I was edited. I rarely “misspell” a word, but I type poorly, and my work is fraught with typos. Thank God for Spell Check! (and before you guys jump on me for my rather large # of typos I have done here in the SDMB, my “Spellchecker” won’t work here. And, no, I don’t know why. It is annoying). Sometimes they DO catch me in a grammar error. But, often, it is a matter of style. I had a real battle with one woman, who edited out all my “dashes” and “…s” which I like to use, and my spelling of “tho”. Even tho I had my “Oxford” to allow these, as stylistic variations, SHE said, “I think it looks unprofessional”, as if I gave a rats ass what SHE thought. But as PULYKAMELL said, a lot of the rules the “grammar police” come up with are wrong.
And MONTY, thanks for that unprovoked & unjustified personal attack. It was helpful, as I was actually starting to respect you. Thanks again.
“Homo sapiens” is singular. It is the name of the species, not a synonym for “a human being”. It is a Latin phrase meaning “Thinking human.” In Latin, the plural of homo sapiens would be homines sapientes (“thinking humans”), but there is no plural of the name of the species. Homo sapien is just nonsense. If you want to, you can talk about “two specimens of Homo sapiens” but you’re probably better off just saying “two humans” or “two people”.
Other words that look plural but are actually singular include “kudos” and “congeries”. Words that look singular but are actually plural include “data”, “criteria”, and “phenomena.”
Feel free to hie on over to any of the fundamentalist boards, check the “caliber” of the writing, and you shall soon discover what the New Testament writer probably meant by “You shall know the truth and it shall set you free.” I’m obviously alluding to D’s most likely, nay, sole likely place of publication.
Monty, thanks for your keen editorial eye. “Do it correctly,” is the correct phrase I should have used in my original post. I believe I was grasping for the phrase “Get it right,” and the old brain was not pulling up the right word.
Lexicon, I like the way you think. Now I understand your UserName! There are some awesome writers contributing to this board, and those who observe standardized grammar and spelling rules only improve their work. For instance, your post expressed your ideas well and your message was immediately graspable. THIS IS BECAUSE LEXICON OBSERVES THE CORRECT RULES OF GRAMMAR, all you up-and-coming writers.
Tell me about this Grammar and Spelling Police, everyone. Is this an agency formed to keep the SDMB on the straight and narrow? I have not heard it mentioned before now, and am interested in joining up. Do I get a gen-yoo-wine badge and billy club if I am accepted?
Both the dictionaries I have at hand admit right in the sense of “properly”. I would have qualms about using “right” as a synonym for “very” as in “right soon”. Fowler says
[quote]
The adverb right, in the senses ‘properly,’ ‘correctly,’ is being squeezed out by the tendency to uniodiomatic -ly. . . . In all the following types rightly is possible, but right is better:[ul]He guessed right;
You did right in apologizing;
If I remember right;
Teach him to hold his pen right.[/ul]
Grammar is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of rules, and there are acknowledged authorities on the subject (Merriam-Webster, Kate Turabian, to name a few). Personally, when I have a question, I refer to those authorities and use their advice (I am, after all, a secretary by trade - grammar and spelling are my touchstones).
Lucky for you idiots {cough} {cough} {daniel} {cough} English is a living language, and therefore changes and is flexible, and all your little “opinions” on what is and is not acceptable are glossed over and are understandable by the readers to whom you’re writing (most of the time). Otherwise, you’d all just look ignorant. :rolleyes:
Oh, and “tho” is completely unacceptable. Your editor was right.
There is ineffective expression, but this has little to do with the edicts of syntactic prescriptivists: if “Im the big bad booty daddy!” works as an exclamation for the person utterring it, it is grammatical. Acceptable forms of syntax and spelling are just that: acceptable, not right. “Authorities” on grammar are merely codifying the usage of a particular group.
That hideous words like “irregardless” are currently evidence of mental slips or poor education means nothing in the development of language. Maybe “irregardless” will fly, maybe not. If it flies, it will work just fine, once we who twitch at it have gone.
Whether apostrophes fade away will depend on what they add to written expression. My guess is that they will persist despite large numbers of people having no idea how to u’se them, because context frequently does not resolve the meaning and the consequences of misunderstanding are non-trivial. The “split infinitive” rule always was a wank and it’s dead meat now.
This is so cool. Last night I was thinking about starting a thread like this, but related to the point I am about it make.
And, if I make grammar mistakes in this post, please excuse me. I think it’s a fairly universal truth that whenever you open your mouth to criticize another’s grammar, you’ll make mistakes youself.
I saw a post the other day in which someone wrote that they didn’t care enough to worry about spelling in their posts. And so I started wondering: What are the major parts of being considered literate? Perhaps some experts can help me out with this, but it seems that there are some definite requirements.
Being able to recognize the forms of written letters and the sounds they make.
Being able to read words and sentences and interpret their meaning.
Being able to communicate your own thoughts in a written language using the rules of that language correctly.
Hopefully all people on this board have a firm grasp on #1, above. Most seems to do well with #2. But #3 seems to elude many. If you don’t bother to spell correctly (or don’t know how), and don’t use correct grammar, can you really call yourself literate? It would seem that you’ve only mastered two and a half of the fundamental three steps.
Back when I was learning to write, one of my teachers told me that writing was like riding a bike. You have to learn the basics before you start to do tricks with (or on) it. I suspect few of those who, in this thread, use the fact that English is a living language to justify their poor grammar have learned those basics. Therefore, as Lexicon said, you don’t get to have input in forming the new language. You just get laughged at for poor usage of the current one.
And Daniel, I’m not surprised you’ve been published, even with your writing style. There are a lot of technically poor writers out there. Editors are used to them, and don’t complain much. But that doesn’t mean what you’re doing is correct; in fact, it means you get less respect from people who do care about grammar.
esprix: also thanks for your unprovoked & unwarranted personal attack. It does show me that I am wrong whem I start feeling some respect for some of you “fogies”. Why the Hell are you attacking ME? Oh, and the Oxford Dictionary accepts “tho” as “var.”. But of course you know more about the English language than they do.
Necros: I wrote a grand Jury Report all by my lonesome. this is edited by a team of 9 editors, passed on by the entire Grand Jury, is reviewed by the Chief Clerk, and by The Presiding Judge of the Superiour Court, the District Attorney, and County Counsel. They found no grammar or spelling errors, or anything along those lines to corrct, except the editorial commitee, that put my report in a somewhat different format, so that all the reports looked similar. Did not have to change a word, just some new headers & moved a couple of lines around. I had no problem with that.
I also wrote a number of Sections for a Procedure manual for a large Federal Dept.
I have no problems with good grammar, or spelling. We should all use these. What I have a problem with is the self-appointed “mayvens” & “experts” that make up “rules” that are not helpful, not useful, and wrong as often as not. For example, as Pulkamell shows, the “rules” for “split infinitives”, “dangling prepositions” and “double negatives” exist only in those self-righteous mavens minds (or books). A brief reading of the grammar guide of my Oxford mentions NONE of these rules. And since there is no “recognized arbiter”, and the Mayvens & experts often disagree, there is a reasonable amount of flexibility in the “rules”.
And Monty, you are not implying I am some sort of “fundie” are you? Hell, most Christians would argue I’m not even a Christian. I loosely follow the precepts of the Celtic Christian Church. But after your unprovoked personal attacks, I am starting to not care about what you think.
Oh, and there are different opinions, but Oxford sez no “’” in “CDs”.
