That grits and eggs taste good mixed together.
Through several examples, I’ve learned that there are a lot of good people on an anonymous message board who will band together and help out a stranger going through a tough time when the need arises. And it’s pretty cool to see.
I’ve benefited from that a great number of times…and in many of those instances, it was you who gave the good answer before I needed to! Thanks!
I have learned–a little-humility.
And, I have seen some Humanity.
I am grateful for both.
I’ve become more educated on both sides of the gun control debate.
The reason the hook your vacuum cord rests on flips 180 degrees is to unwind the cord in one motion. I knew the piece flipped but it literally never occurred to me to do that until someone mentioned it in a thread.
Ok. I stand corrected. Sounds like either of these analytic alactivities would be an antidote to rampant subject-verb disagreement, a grammar peeve that irks me even more than it’s/its misuse.
I’ve learned here, more than anywhere else online, that I can be an utter shit to someone if I get mad enough. Until I’ve reflected on past bad behaviors, I always assumed I’d be one of those that there’d be no way I’d be so moronic, nor no button allowed to be pushed too much, that would cause me to cross my personal line of integrity and lose control of myself.
That is to laugh. :dubious:
And I’d like to say it’s only happened once and I corrected it, never making that mistake again. But sadly, that just ain’t so.
Mostly, I’ve figured out my best bet is to stay away from discussions that I know I can’t keep level-headed about, say my spiel and leave it alone or use the ignore function liberally. I’m still working on understanding how to not get too worked up when “who is right on the internet” really doesn’t matter anyway and for wrapping my brain around how I can be such an immature asshole in the first place. Obviously, it’s a long process.
Is this (below) an example of subject-verb disagreement, or is it some other sin?
“Waiting patiently on the highway, a car eventually slowed and gave Joe a lift.”
I see this one a LOT!
Originally posted by ThelmaLou:
(I’ve learned that no matter how (to me) neutral a statement I make or question I ask, and no matter how (to me) civilly I phrase it, someone will take offense, be insulted, take it personally, want to fight, or want to bite my face off (but only if they live in Florida)).
I live in Florida and I don’t want to bite your face off. I like you.
I’ve learned many new words and I’ve learned a lot of history.
What we were shown and some people seem to never have gone beyond is even skimpier… just separating words by their function. It’s impossible to rebuild back the sentence if it was in an unusual order. Diagramming seems to be a middle step, the geometry of the diagram indicates a word’s function but it never gets to the level of grouping words into syntagms and indicating that syntagm’s function within the sentence.
It’s certainly difficult to match subject and verb properly if the highest syntactical structure you were taught was the “noun”.
Normally what people mean by subject-verb disagreement is a mismatch in the number or the person (“you am”). That sentence is badly written but I’m not sure what the exact name for “dude, you switched subjects in mid-sentence” would be.
I’ve learned that some people actually believe the idiocy taught as “grammar” at the elementary and high school level, and that colloquial speech is somehow ungrammatical (a nonsensical concept to the extent it isn’t a blatantly racist and classist one) or grammatically deficient.
No, that’s a dangling participle (at least I think that’s what it’s called). “Waiting” doesn’t modify “car.” It should be “Waiting patiently on the highway, Joe longed for a car to come by.” Or, “Speeding down the road, a car finally stopped for Joe.” “Speeding” modifies “car.” You’re right-- this mistake is everywhere.
What I’m talking about is something like, “The collapse of the empire representing the culmination of all his hopes and dreams were the cause of his descent into madness.” It happens with long sentences where the subject and verb are not close to each other. People make the verb agree with the nearest noun, “dreams,” which is plural, when the subject of the sentence way back at the beginning is the singular noun, “collapse.” It should be “was the cause…”
I see and hear this everywhere, even in the New York Times and on NPR. But if as a kid you diagrammed LOTS of sentences, your eye and ear grab the subject of the sentence and you are not led astray by a string of intervening phrases.
That was not a great example. I came across one the other day-- should have saved it.
Grammar is all about clarity. Period. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Colloquial speech is appropriate if your intended audience understands you, and if you want to be understood by them. If you’re addressing a big audience, following conventional grammar rules can enhance your clarity. Unless you don’t care whether or not you are understood.
And anyway, as far as I can see/hear, it isn’t taught anymore, so no worries.
I learned that people will take a thread that is an entire herd wide, narrow it to one particular horse, and then beat that poor thing until there is nothing left but a greasy spot on the screen. 
Hell yeah- I don’t feel like searching for it, but several years ago there was this thread where the general consensus was that it was a-ok for brothers and sisters to have sex, as long as they’re consenting adults and use birth control. That one made my skin crawl and it was precisely when I learned what you just said above.
Sadly, it is, much to the detriment of the language.
Particularly the moronic notion that the passive voice is somehow unclear, or shouldn’t be used.
In an effort to squeegee the screen, I’ll also add that I learned that sending a rocket to the Sun requires a LOT of energy. And that it is far easier to send a rocket to the Sun by first sending it to Uranus or Neptune or something.
“Mark Twain” actually originally was a count. It was used when measuring depth of teh water. As I recall “Mark Twain” meant two fathoms. I’m sure this must be decsribed in Twain’s autobiography or perhaps “Life on the Mississippi.”
The passive voice can indeed be unclear and should be avoided if you’re trying to communicate. If you want to hide the actor and be secretive about the locus of responsibility, then by all means, indulge in it to your heart’s content. “Mistakes were made.” BY WHOM?
I worked for decades with a woman who was the Queen of the Passive Voice, and most of the time, I had to interrogate her to find out what the hell she was talking about.
She’d come out of a meeting and say, “I was told to get the report in today.”
Me: WHO told you?
Her: “It was decided that we’re canceling the luncheon.”
Me: WHO decided it?
Her: “Joe Blow was removed from the committee.”
Me: WHO removed him?
And on and on. She gave me the feeling that she was deliberately hiding information. My impression was that she was raised to be a super “nice girl,” and that somehow the Passive Voice was genteel and gave you a way to avoid revealing potentially controversial details, like who actually DID something or who was responsible for something. Used to drive me nuts.
How much clearer the above exchange would have gone without the P.V.: “Mike told me to get that report in today. Then Bob and Carol decided to cancel the luncheon, since there’s never a good turnout. Pete finally removed Joe Blow from the committee and replaced him with Mary Lou.”
Why didn’t you say so in the first place?