“If you do that more then 5 times a day you may go blind” is incorrect, please do not use it this way. It should be “If you do that more than 5 times a day you may go blind”.
I started noticing this a few years ago and it seems to be mostly isolated to the internet (although I have started to see it turn up in college papers recently).
I’m certainly not Mr. Grammar Guy, but let’s get real, this is something everyone should know by the time they’re in 3rd grade.
So, for those who don’t know I provide the following.
You’re not the only one, but unfortunately all the other ones are just as silly for being hissy about it. It only makes them look like they’re trying to compensate for their lack of knowledge of the matter being discussed by displaying their knowledge of grammar instead. It’s like if in this thread about grammar, if I should happent to point out that I know little of it, but I do know that Stalin had webbed feet.
Many people - myself included - when typing furiously, type their inner voice. Sometimes this translates into a homonym being typed by accident, that isn’t always edited out. Same reason that many people will substitute the wrong “their” “there” or “they’re”, even when they know better.
My second point is that I’ve never seen non-Merkins make this mistake (maybe some Canuks). I believe it’s an accent thing. There’s a very clear distinction in e.g. Irish and English accents between these two words, whereas in parts of the US there doesn’t seem to be. This is an observation, not a criticism. We make our own accent-related errors.
Pah! That’s nothing compared to the BLINDING RAGE that I feel when people call the things in their throat that vibrate when they talk “vocal chords”.
Well, not really. Which is fortunate, since Google found about 4,500 more results for “vocal chords” than for “vocal cords” - I blame a capella groups trying to be witty.
I find that the only way I can keep these two straight is to remember the “if…then” construct I have typed countless thousands of times in multiple programming languages. How geeky.
Thanks, Nurobath. I needed a refresher on that one. I agree with Eternal that grammar nit-picks are no substitute for substance when it comes to discourse and debate. I also think that jjimm makes a good point about the medium. Often times posts are composed in a rush for any number of reasons. Like, for example, you are at work or perhaps a pay-per-minute internet kiosk. Plus the load times here can really blow at times, so previewing can start to wear on morale after a while. In a perfect world the talent (writers) would always be able to rely on editors and proof readers to weed out the poor grammar of the inner psyche. Under-appreciated and often ignored - editors and proofreaders are an invaluable tool when the goal is a quality product. I tend to just chalk up mistakes to a lack of the proper resources.
Nevertheless, I am always trying to improve my writing skills, so informative bits like this are welcome. I found the debate over the possessive form of ‘it’ to be thrilling. How’s that for geeky? Screw it. I don’t care. I like to live on the edge. (By the way minor7flat5, I have always used that same line of thought. When I was a kid, I used to program adventure games (ala Zork) in Basic. Ever since, whenever I try to figure out which one to use I remember typing all of those damn “if . . . then” statements and it all becomes clear.
Finally, these rules are suggestive, not definitive. Language is ever changing and fluid, and so you can never really lock it down. Usage will change and regional differences are unavoidable. I reserve the right to use any grammatically incorrect statements for the sake of flavor where appropriate, but when I do, I want it to be a choice based in style, not a mistake borne of ignorance. I enjoy these general grammar rants for that reason.
Are you suggesting that the “correct” usages of “then” and “than” are merely the latest trend? If so, then you are a binomial astroplasticizer (by which I mean lazy fool – but said with a sense of flair).
As long as we’re picking grammatical nits, a person with a lot of information is not a “font of knowledge.” Get with the Times New Roman, people!
Not exactly. Brittany Spears, reality television, and mp3 players should be safe for a little while longer. By the way, I don’t think you need that ‘s’ on the end of ‘usages’ (sorry, couldn’t resist). Here is an excerpt that covers what I was getting at pretty well:
I guess what I’m saying is that if people decide that ‘than’ and ‘then’ can be interchanged, well, then they can! Just to actually add something other than commentary check out this list of some of the most commonly violated rules of writing. Oh, and some of these puns are totally unforgivable people! Where’s the self respect?
By that logic, I could call GWB a competent and articulate elected official.
I can understand that some silly rules such as not ending a sentence with a preposition (you know what I speak of) will dropped by the wayside because they just obfusticate things. But replacing meaningful words with nonsense “because I feel like it” or because “the language is changing anyway so it really doesn’t matter” is just plain laziness.
It’s not nonsense if the listener is able to understand exactly what the speaker means. Communication is the goal. Words are just tools in the same way that gestures and body language can be tools. If the communication occurs, then it doesn’t really matter if they obeyed the rules of the linguistic elite. I’ve had some wonderful conversations with people who have terrible grammar. The use of slang and the resultant departures from grammar guidelines does not mean someone is lazy by default. They coould simply be hard-working people with regional dialects/accents.
This is a pretty inconsequential debate, but it beats doing my job (I’ll cop to a healthy does of personal laziness. But I’m often lazy in the most creative and time-consuming ways, so it’s a wash).
Typos I have no problem with, it’s the repeated use that bugs me.
Once or twice might be a typo but when I see it over and over that tells me that the writer is either lazy or ignorant or the proper usage.
I don’t agree. While there are parts of the language that change for various reasons (slang, cultural influences, etc.), these seem to me to be additive changes to the language. New words or new meanings. The use of improper grammar doesn’t seem to become commonly accepted usage very often. I should note that I’m talking about written language here (and should have mentioned that in the OP). Spoken language is a whole other story, where slang and various other manglings of the language are common.
What if I suddenly started to reverse the usage of the words "and " and “or”? People may still understand my statements but they would not understand my meaning. You can’t just go around changing things will-nilly. People won’t know what the hell you are talking about.
But if they (the intended audience) did manage to get your meaning then communication has occured and it doesn’t matter one bit whether it matched up with the rules written down by linguists.
I find it hard to believe that you’re still defending the use of words that do not mean what they do not mean. You seem to be under the impression that language is some arbitrary set of draconian rules set forth by dusty old scholars for the sole purpose of oppressing your free speech. Sure, in a cultural context, “bad” or “phat” might mean “fine and dandy”, but to say “giraffe” when you mean “pelican” is just plain wrong. Not only have you offended the Judges of Grammatical Pedantry, you have failed to communicate.
