Life In 19x19
http://www.lifein19x19.com/

Obligatory Grammar Rant
http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2569		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  judicata [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Obligatory Grammar Rant
I have to come out as a closet grammar nerd.

Even before I begin, three caveats: (1) I know for many people on this forum, English is not their first language. Therefore, while these are still things you should learn, I don't judge your posts :). (2) I know this is an internet forum, and no one should have to carefully edit all of his or her posts (I'm sure you can find several mistakes in this post). (3) I usually don't criticize grammar in a thread, because doing so is annoying.

Of course, most people would like to avoid errors that either cause confusion or risk making the writer look stupid.

So, without further introduction:

    - It is should have or should've not should of
    - Not for all intensive purposes but for all intents and purposes
    - Which is not a formal synonym for that. There is a difference. "That" is restrictive, while "which" is non-restrictive. Often, "which" is preceded by a comma. Think of the difference between, "Go get the car, which is blue," and "Go get the car that is blue."
    - Similarly, don't use formal sounding words to sound smarter. It doesn't work.
    - Momentarily means "for a moment" not "in a moment." I thank the airline industry for deforming this one. Yes, the meaning is widely used, but careful readers will spot it as an error.
    - While studying, you may pore over the material (though a group of people may pour into a room.
    - in lieu means "instead of," not "in light of."
    - beck and call not beckon call
    - a lot not alot
    - your is possessive for you. You're is a contraction for "you are."
    - Singular pronouns are possessive without an apostrophe. So, the following are possessive forms: hers, his, its .
    - It's, therefore, means "it is."
    - Irregardless. No. You mean irrespective or regardless.
    - Normalcy. Yes, I know it has gained acceptance, but it should be normality.
    - If you're writing to a mixed audience and you're American (or, rather, you speak/write American English), feel free to use American English. If you're British, use British English, and so on. Either way, you should be familiar with some of the differences, so you are not misunderstood. Granted, most differences won't cause much confusion (e.g., color/colour).
    - Speaking of which, e.g. is an abbreviation of exempli gratia, and means "for example." I.e. is an abbreviation of id est and means, "that is." So, use "e.g" for examples.


Feel free to add your own, or argue with any of mine :).
Author:  kirkmc [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Yea, but...

Language changes. Words like momentarily have changed their meaning. There is no hard-and-fast written-in-stone meaning for any word.

As for which and that, there are differences between BE and AE usage.

Just saying. I am a language geek too; I have an OED on paper (along with dozens of other dictionaries), but I'm not a prescriptivist. I believe that language change is normal and desirable.
Author:  judicata [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
kirkmc wrote:
Yea, but...

Language changes. Words like momentarily have changed their meaning. There is no hard-and-fast written-in-stone meaning for any word.

As for which and that, there are differences between BE and AE usage.

Just saying. I am a language geek too; I have an OED on paper (along with dozens of other dictionaries), but I'm not a prescriptivist. I believe that language change is normal and desirable.


Ah, yes, the ol' descriptivism vs. prescriptivism debate. I'm neither a pure presciptivist nor a pure descriptivist, and I would suspect the same of you. I completely agree that change is important and necessary, but not all changes should be welcomed--particularly those that remove useful nuance and make communication more difficult.

Besides, many mistakes will make you look ignorant to readers (or, perhaps worse, cause you to be misunderstood), no matter how much of a descriptivist you are.
Author:  Dusk Eagle [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
I'm more of a spelling nerd, so when something is spelled improperly, I generally notice. However, it generally doesn't annoy me though unless it is a common misspelling or someone makes a misspelling out of sheer laziness while in the middle of telling someone how dumb they are (which happens far too often in the comments section of websites).

I'll admit, my grammar is far from perfect. Nevertheless, I would like to comment on a couple of your points:

Quote:
Which is not a formal synonym for that.

This one seems far too pedantic. There are times when only one of these words makes sense. However, there are other times where it is not at all clear what difference using one word over the other makes. For instance, "This is the house which John built" vs. "This is the house that John built."

Quote:
Momentarily

Words change meaning. I think this one clearly has as well. While the old meaning is still preserved, the new meaning has clearly come into contemporary usage (it's even in all the dictionaries I looked in), and I don't understand what's so bad about it.

Quote:
Your is possessive for you. You're is a contraction for "you are."

I admit, this one really irks me too.
Author:  DrStraw [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
judicata wrote:
- Not for all intensive purposes but for all intents and purposes
Feel free to add your own, or argue with any of mine :).


You seem very intensive in your purpose for this post. In fact it appears you have multiple purposes so perhaps for all your intensive purposes you will receive a lot of comments.
Author:  judicata [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Dusk Eagle wrote:

Quote:
Which is not a formal synonym for that.

This one seems far too pedantic. There are times when only one of these words makes sense. However, there are other times where it is not at all clear what difference using one word over the other makes. For instance, "This is the house which John built" vs. "This is the house that John built."



A fair point. Especially in informal contexts, this is subtle enough to let go. But overuse of "which" is often a symptom of trying to sound smarter (as improperly using "whom" for "who").

Dusk Eagle wrote:
Quote:
Momentarily

Words change meaning. I think this one clearly has as well. While the old meaning is still preserved, the new meaning has clearly come into contemporary usage (it's even in all the dictionaries I looked in), and I don't understand what's so bad about it.


The confusion can create ambiguity. "Ms. Johnson will meet with you momentarily." What does that mean? I meant to suggest this is another subtle one.

DrStraw wrote:
judicata wrote:
- Not for all intensive purposes but for all intents and purposes
Feel free to add your own, or argue with any of mine :).


You seem very intensive in your purpose for this post. In fact it appears you have multiple purposes so perhaps for all your intensive purposes you will receive a lot of comments.


While I agree that "intensive purposes" may be appropriate in some contexts, it is not usually what people mean when they say it. They usually mean it is "good enough" (or whatever) for all purposes--not just the intensive ones.
Author:  Solomon [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.Image
Author:  kirkmc [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
judicata wrote:
kirkmc wrote:
Yea, but...

Language changes. Words like momentarily have changed their meaning. There is no hard-and-fast written-in-stone meaning for any word.

As for which and that, there are differences between BE and AE usage.

Just saying. I am a language geek too; I have an OED on paper (along with dozens of other dictionaries), but I'm not a prescriptivist. I believe that language change is normal and desirable.


Ah, yes, the ol' descriptivism vs. prescriptivism debate. I'm neither a pure presciptivist nor a pure descriptivist, and I would suspect the same of you. I completely agree that change is important and necessary, but not all changes should be welcomed--particularly those that remove useful nuance and make communication more difficult.

Besides, many mistakes will make you look ignorant to readers (or, perhaps worse, cause you to be misunderstood), no matter how much of a descriptivist you are.


Right, I mean I'm not a prescriptivist regarding semantics; not for things like its/it's.

This said, in the past people wrote "amn't" or "do n't," so, while "it's" for "its" is very wrong, who knows? Maybe it'll become the norm. The New York Times uses the 's plural (ABC's, for example).
Author:  wessanenoctupus [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
you guys are so silly...:)
Author:  Bill Spight [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Matron knocks on door. Little Boy answers.

Matron: Is your mother in?

Little Boy: Naw, she ain't here.

Matron: Young man! Where is your grammar?

Little Boy: She ain't here, neither.

;)
Author:  MountainGo [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Araban wrote:
"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.Image
I have no clue as to who would enjoy such a joke. Maybe you should tell that to who you think would laugh.
Author:  Jujube [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
I work for a company who use email and write a lot of letters.

My biggest gripe is with those who cannot differentiate between:

Their - indicating possession;
They're - a contraction of 'they are';
There - an adverb, amongst other uses.

I don't feel that I should correct those who aren't good at grammar - I just feel a bit sorry for them.

FYI - I don't know how this stands with American English, but I would always say "We'll be with you presently" and never "We'll be with you momentarily". I would class that as incorrect - "presently" sounds much better (though a bit stuffy?).

For interesting reading, The Times (UK) have a "style guide" for editors, organised in a dictionary-style group of difficult grammar and punctuation points to take note of.

What are people's thoughts on split infinitives?
Author:  Bill Spight [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Jujube wrote:
What are people's thoughts on split infinitives?


To split or to not split,
Which is the question.

;)
Author:  nagano [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
@Jujube In America, you almost always hear "momentarily" and rarely hear "presently", unless the food is $100 a plate. Presently actually does not quite fit with normal usage (at least in American English) because it has the connotation of right now.
Author:  Kirby [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Obligatory?
Author:  DrStraw [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Jujube wrote:
What are people's thoughts on split infinitives?


They are the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.
Author:  amnal [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
MountainGo wrote:
Araban wrote:
"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.Image
I have no clue as to who would enjoy such a joke. Maybe you should tell that to who you think would laugh.


I enjoyed it.
Author:  judicata [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Kirby wrote:
Obligatory?


I thought that these were fairly common in discussion forums (or is it fora? :) ). But such posts are usually from people who criticize other posters' grammar in a thread--something I refuse to do.

DrStraw: I think that is for ending sentences with prepositions.

I tend to look at "rules" such as "don't end a sentence with a preposition" or "never split an infinitive" more like proverbs; you should probably think about them, but don't follow them blindly.
Author:  Joaz Banbeck [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
amnal wrote:
MountainGo wrote:
Araban wrote:
"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.Image
I have no clue as to who would enjoy such a joke. Maybe you should tell that to who you think would laugh.


I enjoyed it.


I too.
Author:  hyperpape [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Obligatory Grammar Rant
Here's a complaint: advising people not to abuse sophisticated sounding words has nothing to do with grammar.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/