How sad. 
Hope things start looking up for you soon, erislover.
Any and all contributions to the More Smooching, Less Fighting peace movement are gratefully accepted, although any actual smooches donated are not tax deductible. (Much appreciated, but you know how unreasonable Uncle Sam is about these things.)
Does anyone know where I can get flame-proof chapstick? I’m not going anywhere near any of the war/anti-war threads without it. 
Speling is a compeately seperate issue to grammer, you know.
Not so much a hijack as an expansion of the OP–
grammar is NOT being taught in colleges. Deliberately and systematically, colleges are giving up on the insistent correction of gramatical ‘mistakes,’ on the grounds that they’re not mistakes at all.
At the university where I teach English, I’ve gotten a serious reputation as a non-student-centered teacher because I explain grammatical errors as “incorrect,” “wrong,” “sub-standard,” etc. There is no amount of euphemizing that is acceptable, because students (my colleagues say) resent being corrected. At times, one might use a phrase like, “This is excellent work, although some sticklers might prefer to see plural nouns taking plural pronouns. Your call. Have a great day :)” or some such crap.
And forget about failing students who can’t write a grammatical sentence. Other than for plagiarism, non-attendance and other such issues, I can’t remember the last time I failed a student in an English class–the peer pressure was too great. If I failed the four or five students per term who couldn’t navigate a single sentence, my colleagues would denounce me as punitive, authoritarian, and uncaring, so I go along. And every year, the students’ grammar gets worse, and the grades get ever-higher.
And these are our future doctors, lawyers, judges, and politicians. Quite frightening, really.
Alright appears in my 22 year old dictionary. Why should I be expected to stop using a word that has been a legitimate part of the English language longer than I’ve been alive?
My hate is the superfluous ‘of’ that appears after ‘off’ so often.
“The woman got off the bus,” not “The woman got off of the bus.”
Shudder.
I hate when people use “whom” as a relative pronoun. E.g., “He was the one whom burned down the orphanage.” I saw this in my school newspaper, whose editing process couldn’t possibly be more than a spell check. Use who or that, damn it.
Not at all, no. pseudotriton ruber ruber’s fellow educators would be ignorance apologists, softening the impact of their criticism by telling students that grammar issues are up for interpretation when in fact they are not, to spare their feelings. What I was specifically saying was more in reference to a discussion that sprang up in another recent grammar thread regarding word usage.
erislover, I agree with you. Language is for communication, and it would be foolish to regard it as anything but organic. But in cases like this one (and like the one in the ‘literally’ thread), where the incorrect usage that’s gaining acceptance makes communication less clear, I don’t see how it’s possible to support that change.
While I’m not too familiar with the history of the English language, I imagine if I’d have been around back then I’d have had a lot of trouble when the second-person singular set of pronouns passed out of the language. Inaccuracy in the second person is one of those little quirks about English that I hate.
warm-up = noun
warm up = verb
sit-up = noun
sit up = verb
run-around = noun
run around = verb
While language evolves, and must be permitted to, I firmly believe that this does NOT excuse carelessness. There are rules to the language, they can be changed over time, as the users of the language use words in different ways. But the reason language works is because as English speakers we share a common understanding of a set of rules. These rules can’t be changed at whim, because if they were, we wouldn’t understand each other any more.
Innovations are often necessary (‘the Internet’), or reflect a society’s changing values (‘cool’). There are rules our parents learned in school that we no longer follow - ever dangle a participle? Split an infinitive? End a sentence with a preposition? Probably, and no one really cares except when it interferes with our understanding or the rhythm of the sentence. (Churchill: ‘This is the kind of silliness up with which I will not put.’)
But you can’t just change the rules out of laziness, even if everyone else is doing it. If these innovations cost us perfectly good words (literally), make things less precice, or less pretty, then we should make an effort to preserve the way things are.
The spelling errors are clearly intentional, but is the grammar error intentional?
Girlfriend? Thing’s? Thing’s girlfriend? That would be Lady Fingers.
<crickets>
Is this not Cafe Society?
That’s cuz it ain’t a mistake. From Merriam-Webster:
Of course, now the biddies will come along and decry the barbarian lexicographers at Merriam Webster, assert that those dictionary-writing fools don’t know what they’re talking about. We all know how which plays out by now.
Daniel
That’s a pretty personal question.
No thanks, I’m not hungry.
So, what’s your sign, baby?
Speaking to the notion that colleges don’t teach grammar anymore, my girlfriend (psych prof) is pretty insistant that her students use proper grammer and spelling. And being that they’re mostly uneducated or foreign, that’s a tall order.
She’s a stickler for proper usage. Last night I taped the holy grail of TV shows, Alton Brown makes biscuits. Imagine my girlfriend cringing when she sees this – Alton talking about his biscuit baking “methodology.”
Several items have come to mind while reading this thread. Far from perfection, yet I’m still striving for accuracy.
Loose vs. lose: Some folk don’t seem to understand the difference between “Let loose the hounds!” and “Let’s lose the hounds!”
Moot vs. mute: At meetings, I’ve heard speakers referring to a mute point. Was the point not able to speak? Was the point that of a device applied to the bell of a trumpet or cornet while playing to change its tone?
When were the grammatical gates let down so as to accept sentences beginning with the words ‘and’ and ‘but’? When read by themselves, these are sentence fragments, and should be appropriately coupled with the preceding sentence, else they ought not to be.
Perhaps some inspired English professor will meet a programmer to produce the program: English Pedant. Users will not be able to save or send any document until all errors are corrected!
A.) I agree wholeheartedly with the OP and all of the supporting posts above.
B.) It reminded me of a joke I heard today. You may change geographies to suit yourselves, but this is verbatim as I was told.
C.) A lot is two words, alot is not a word at all!
Here’s another one for you, Rhubarb:
A freshman is lost on his first day at Princeton. He approaches an upperclassman and says, “Hey, do you know where the library is at?”
The upperclassman looks down his nose at the younger fellow and says, “My good man, here at Princeton we do not end our sentences with prepositions.”
The freshman thinks for a moment, then says, “Hey, do you know where the library is at, asshole?”
–viva
While I’m complaining, I’d just like to put in my vote for “butt naked.” That’s “buck”, bucko. Just because you can see a naked person’s butt does not mean she is butt naked. You never call someone “tit naked”, “nipple naked”, or “weenie nude.”
Well, maybe you do. I don’t.
Are there any rules about “who” as opposed to “that”? (and is that question mark in the correct place?)
Those who went…
Those that went…
Or is that something that only grates on me? I always feel as though, when talking about persons, who should be used. Inanimate objects rate a that.
I’m a fan of:
“The Point is moo!”
“don’t you mean the point is moot?”
“No! I mean the point is Moo! You know, like the opinion of a cow, it just doesn’t matter!”
I just lost half a cup of juice through my nose… thank you
Sorry, but I won’t be able to get anything done all morning unless I comment on this.
“Whom” is the objective case; “who” is the nominative case. So, yes, ‘whom’ is the one that functions as the object of a preposition. However, the example you provided is not merely a preposition phrase: there’s a clause in there, too! The prep phrase in your example is “to the one”, while “who did what” is an adjective clause, which is telling us more about ‘the one’. We can tell it’s a clause because it has a subject (who) and a conjugated verb (did) and even an object (what). Within the clause, then, the word ‘who’ is acting as a subject. So it’s ‘who’, not ‘whom’.
Sorry about all that, erislover. I’m not sure that I cleared anything up, but this idea–that just because a word comes after a preposition then it must take the objective case–is such a common misconception and precipitates so many whoms instead of whos * that I had to comment on it.
*re: the OP: look how much work it took me to construct a semi-acceptable use of the word “whos”. 
I challenge others to improve on this.