<---------------------------->
This is where the thread end’s, D00D! 
“This is where the thread end’s, D00D!”
!
Mikahw, I gotta know: was end’s intentional?
Absolutely.
Quite unfortunately, however, I don’t think I put enough errors in that sentence 
As a linguistician, and someone who intends to nitpick for Britain (once nitpicking achieves its proper recognition as an Olympic sport)… I don’t have a problem with “is when/where”. I mean, what about common sayings like “Home is where the heart is”? (<— n.b., question mark not part of quoted material.)
As for apostrophes, I think I’ve seen the worst. I thought I’d seen it in a hand-written sign for a local bus company, where the writer, obviously a believer in “better safe than sorry”, had inserted an apostrophe in front of every single letter S in the text. But then I visited a launderette, and… Consider this message, grammarians: “DRYER OUT OF ORDER PERMANENT”. You may have questions in mind as you look at this, like “Isn’t that a sentence fragment?” or “Shouldn’t that be ‘permanently’?” Somebody, however, looked at it and thought, “Where should I put the apostrophe?”
The answer? Between the R and the M. “PER’MANENT”
Bob’s quick guide, anyone?
This is standard USA practice, as articulated to me by my legal writing instructor.
A few weeks ago, a group of high school students had a car wash at their school. Kids were out front with signs that said, “Free Car Wash, Donations Excepted”.
I wondered if the English Department knew what was going on.
And yet, Kinsey, it make a strange sort of sense. If you make a donation, your car wash can be free, and thus is excepted from the policy of free car washes.
While I recoil in horror with everyone at the many crimes committed in the name of the apostrophe, I have to mention one of my least favorite grammatical errors. In honor of the circumstances in which I saw it most often, I’ll call it “The Cheerleaders’ Theirs,” as in:
Pep Rally Today! Everybody Be Their!
or
Spirit Buttons! They Have Theres – Do You?
(These same people also seemed highly susceptible to apostrophe-related grammatical illnesses. Rah rah rah!)
So they forgot an apostrophe, cut them some slack. Double-contractions aren’t exactly common.
“Dryer out of order per’man’ent” is correct but I would have paid for a larger sign and spelled it out:
Dryer out of order per management.
Actually, the solecism picked up by the OP is not an “always and everywhere” error as seems to be implied by the OP. The rule of usage, such as it is, is this: “is” as a defining form connects identical parts of speech. So a noun may not be defined by an adverbial clause, as in “Morning is when the sun rises.” (Correct to “Morning is the time when the sun rises.”) However, “My bike is where I left it” is not defining the bicycle itself, but its location, and is a quite valid sentence, on a par with “My bike is over there” or “My bike is in the back yard.” And certainly adverbs, adjectives, etc., can be defined by an equivalence clause, as in “‘Early’ is ‘before the expected time,’” or “To damn is to condemn to eternal punishment” – one need not regard those infinitives as equivalent to nouns; they simply stand in positions of equivalence.
However, to pick up on a solecism in one of the posts on proper usage (is this a corollary to Gaudere’s Law?), Kelly, I am surprised to find, by inference, that you have one or more illegal writing instructors. It seems an odd thing to go beyond the bounds of legal businesses to obtain. You might find a hyphen helpful: a legal-writing instructor, i.e., one who instructs in the art of writing legalese. (Does this qualify as fulfilling the foreign-language requirement?) (Do feel free to raspberry me for this nitpick!)
FTR, the rule regarding quotations is “Quotations of forty-nine or fewer words should be enclosed in quotations marks . . . . Always place commas and periods inside the quotation marks; place other punctuation marks inside the quotation marks only if they are part of the matter quoted.” Bluebook, Rule 5.1(b).
Polycarp: While “legal-writing instructor” may be “correct”, it feels seriously wrong to me. The hyphen feels superfluous, although I cannot elaborate on why.
Well, Polycarp, eruditely explicated. Your lucubrations have indeed yielded much fruit, as your name promises. Yet I nitpick as follows:
-
Concerning is when constructions, you more or less repeat what I have already taken some pains to point out myself, with citation of authorities.
-
It is pretty well universally accepted that, when using nested quotes, one should separate adjacent quote marks with a space. Please mend your ways. (So this is when you may tell your friends, "Internaut said, ‘please mend your ways’ ".)
Go, and sin no more.
It’s that common? Then they’re right; grammar rules follow common usage, not vice versa.
Yeesh.
There is still a place for conservatism in these matters though, isn’t there Max the Immortal? We want to maintain intelligibility (across times as well as across cultures), and this is difficult if there are no standards whatsoever to call us back from aberrancy.
Apart from this practical matter, there are those of us who think that language should be beautiful as well as serviceable, and some usages are clearly more beautiful than others. An example: inconsistency in use of tenses when one is telling a story is normally considered off-putting and distracting even when there is no uncertainty as to the sequence of events. Why? It’s just that inconsistency is pretty well universally deplored. Same with consistency and appropriateness of register. How would you feel about my juxtapositing aberrancy (used above) and street talk? That’s one egregiously mother-fuckin’ aberrant asshole, man. Sounds whimsical at best, no?
Standards, my dears: standards.
Beauty, my dear Internaut, is in the eye of the beholder.
[deletes superfluous “de gustibus” comment]
And error, O iampunha the generous-minded, ever trembles on the lips of the ignorant. Even if beauty were in the eye (and ear) of the beholder, we may still aim to please the beholder; and a majority of educated and attentive beholders happen still to prefer consistency and a measure of logical rigour in language. Are education and attentiveness themselves mere matters of taste? I don’t think so.
Ah well. De gustibus grammaticis non est postandum, I guess.
I yelled, “This irks me to no end.”
Then I thought, “Oh, well (upon considerable reflection.”)
Ain’t Latin, Bubba.
This here is English; “as if.”
The island of Kaua’i is where I vacationed in Hawai’i.
September, 1987 is when I visited Centre College.
I had to get that out of my system.
KellyM Perhaps your instructor in legal writing techniques should have informed you, as mine did, that legal writing is filled with arcane rules of construction that have become outmoded in other areas of writing. As a specialized form of writing, legal writing evolves much more slowly than other written language. The rules that may still be in practice, and technically correct for a legal document, may not be proper for other types of writing. But change is in the air. Acknowledging the increased use of word processors, some courts are accepting documents that use italics and boldface type in place of some of the more onerous citing practices, so soon, Gods and Judges willing, we may not need to argue over where the damn comma goes!
And any errors in grammar in this post are deliberate. I swear.
Bah.
Aberration implies violation of some natural laws, not some ad hoc grammatical rules developed to describe a fairly hypothetical ideal usage.
[quote
Apart from this practical matter, there are those of us who think that language should be beautiful as well as serviceable, and some usages are clearly more beautiful than others.
[/quote]
Hogwash. I second imapunha. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not some unfounded essentialism.
[quote]
That’s one egregiously mother-fuckin’ aberrant asshole, man. Sounds whimsical at best, no?
[/quote
Nope, sounds like some artful combination to me. I talk that way all the time.