Obligatory Grammar Rant

[DrStraw]

What are people's thoughts on split infinitives?

They are the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.

[amnal]

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.

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.

[judicata]

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.

[Joaz Banbeck]

"Knock knock."

"Who's there?"

"To."

"To who?"

To WHOM.

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.

[hyperpape]

Here's a complaint: advising people not to abuse sophisticated sounding words has nothing to do with grammar.

[DrStraw]

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.

No, you should not think about them - unless you are speaking Latin. And of course you cannot do so in Latin because of the nature of the language. They are both constructs carried over from Latin when people tried to enforce a Latin grammar on the English language a few hundred years ago. The constructs are acceptable and correct in English.

[EdLee]

I don't feel that I should correct those who aren't good at grammar - I just feel a bit sorry for them.
I work for a company who use email and write a lot of letters.

Which of the following is best (in terms of grammar and style) and which did you mean?
I work for a company who use email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company who uses email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company who use email and writes a lot of letters.
I work for a company that use email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company that uses email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company that uses email and writes a lot of letters.
I work for a company which use email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company which uses email and write a lot of letters.
I work for a company which uses email and writes a lot of letters.
I work for a company that uses email and I write a lot of letters.
I work for a company which uses email and I write a lot of letters.
I work for a company; I use email and write a lot of letters.

[EdLee]

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."

Could you elaborate on this. (I am being sincere. I'm not being sarcastic.) Could you explain this more without using the word "restrictive". Thanks.

[Fedya]

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?).

I think Americans would be more likely to use "shortly" instead of "presently".

If you really want to be stuffy, replace it with "forthwith".

[Bartleby]

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."

Could you elaborate on this. (I am being sincere. I'm not being sarcastic.) Could you explain this more without using the word "restrictive". Thanks.

I'll take a shot at explaining the difference.


"Which" should normally only be used in a clause that is separated from the rest of the sentence by commas, and only when the clause is not essential to the meaning of the sentence (because the sentence would still have the same basic meaning if the clause had been omitted). (I.e., so-called nonrestrictive clauses.)

Example: The Life In 19x19 Forum, which only recently started up, has replaced the previously popular GoDiscussions Forum. (The interior clause is not essential to the meaning of this sentence, which would be essentially the same without the interior clause, and therefore does not "restrict" that meaning.)


"That" should be used in all other cases. (I.e., so-called restrictive clauses.)

Example: The hand that fed him was the hand he bit. (The clause "that fed him" is restrictive in the sense that it is fundamental to the meaning of the sentence because it further identifies "the hand.")

There may be some rare exceptions to the above rules of thumb but they will usually work.

[EdLee]

I'll take a shot at explaining the difference.

Thanks very much.

[HermanHiddema]

I think Americans would be more likely to use "shortly" instead of "presently".

At conferences, my girlfriend always cringed at the abuse, by native Dutch speakers, of the word "shortly". Many of them invariably used it when they meant "briefly", e.g:

"I will now shortly explain the difference between..."

[Gresil]

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.

Why not advocate spelling reform instead?

[Bill Spight]

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."

Could you elaborate on this. (I am being sincere. I'm not being sarcastic.) Could you explain this more without using the word "restrictive". Thanks.

Let me diselaborate.

In my youth I had an interest in grammar, and I had never heard of this usage until a few years ago. I thought that perhaps it was a question of dialect, but tonight I found this site about it: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 02124.html

And I was reminded of this line from "In the Heat of the Night": "I got the motive which is money and the body which is dead."

[usagi]

- It is should have or should've not should of

probably not a grammar error, because people who write should of are hearing "should've".

- Not for all intensive purposes but for all intents and purposes

likewise above. Which is another argument against "American phonics"; the word 'and' must be spoken with a final d. It's not taught so people learn to screw it up.

- 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.
- a lot not alot
- Irregardless. No. You mean irrespective or regardless.
- Normalcy. Yes, I know it has gained acceptance, but it should be normality.

Aren't the above words with the possible exception of irregardless, now standard? Words are created, come into fashion, die ugly deaths (and so forth) all the time. The fact there may be a previously existing word with the same meaning doesn't seem to matter. Normalcy is the best example of this. It's been in dictionaries since at least 1857. Therefore, I don't see much sense in complaining that it "should be" normality. Similarly 'irregardless' dates form about the same period (mid 19th century) -- but is different because it violates rules of grammar. So it's not proper English, but nearly standard now. It's in the Oxford English dictionary.

For the same reason I would say 'cannot' is acceptable, 'alot' (and so on) are probably acceptable too. The real problem here is if we don't allow these "new words", where do we draw the line? 1856? At middle English? 16th century usage? No loan words/foreign words (latin, french, german, etc)? It's unfortunate but unless there's a clear violation of rules (irregardless) I don't see how a choice but to accept the new words. The best we can do is use what we regard as proper English and hope it stands.

-