OT - What grammatical mistakes are okay?

[QuikSand]

Okay, so many of you have figured out that (despite my tendency to make typos when banging stuff out here) I'm pretty strict when it comes to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Even proper word usage (though that's a little tougher, I'd submit).

From time to time, when discussing such things, there has been an undercurrent debate -- an argument something along the lines of "well, if enough people make that same mistake... shouldn't we just start declaring it okay?" I'm willing to entertain this notion... of course, this is how the language changes over time.

So... on the subject of grammar and punctuation (leaving stickier things like word usage aside for now) -- my question is this:

In a fairly formal setting -- a published article, an academic submission, or perhaps a piece of formal correspondence -- what grammatical errors are so common now that they cease to be meaningful?


A few that are on my mind:


who versus whom

that versus which

proper agreement with third person singular pronoun
(typically using words like someone or everyone with the plural pronoun their)

split infinitives

dangling modifiers

...and I'm sure there are other very sound examples.



A strict English teacher would reprimand you or me for making these errors... but for the most part the rest of the world doesn't seem to have a problem with them.

So... at what point are these things okay to just "let go" and not worry about the rules? Are we at that point with any of these already?

[corbes]

I'm not ready to concede any of these rules in formal correspondence.

[clintl]

I don't think you can pinpoint a precise time. I think language changes are so gradual that it may end up being a generational issue. At some point, the number of people accepting the new usage outnumber the ones who don't.

I can remember being taught that ending a sentence with a preposition was wrong, and later, that is wasn't wrong. That might be a good example of a supposed grammatical error gaining acceptance over time (and one that improved the language and made it much less clunky.)

[QuikSand]

The use of whom has gotten almost to the point of being archaic, it seems to me. I try to use it properly, but I find that it takes effort to do so (unlike most things grammatical, I don't have an "ear" for it). When it is used, even properly, I find that it gives off an air of pretentiousness (not usually intended, I'm sure). Certainly in speech, but even in a formal writing.

I think that might be as close as I'd concede, myself.


The "everyone gets their share" problem, though -- I'm not willing to give that up, but it is abundantly common.

[John Galt]

The only two I would concede would be who/whom and that/which. I try to stay consistent with that/which, but I've become used to reading it either way.

[clintl]

Oddly enough, when I was a kid in school, I thought the who/whom thing was pretty stupid. However, I'm more likely to use "whom" in writing now than I was back when I would get my paper marked up for not using it. But it does seem pretentious in speech.

The "everyone gets their share" problem is an artifact of the English language's deficiency in lacking a gender-neutral singular pronoun referring to a person. I don't see that kind of grammar mistake going away in speech, and even in writing, trying to get around the problem is never elegant.

[clintl]

Dola...

I agree with John Galt about that/which. I think it may already be accepted.

[MrBug708]

I'm awesome at grammatically correct words

Just kidding of course.

[Huckleberry]

May I simply suggest that improper use of reflexive pronouns, primarily "myself", should be punishable by death?

[Celeval]

proper agreement with third person singular pronoun
(typically using words like someone or everyone with the plural pronoun their)
I think the biggest reason for this is the lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun - given the choice:

Someone needs to turn his volume down.
Someone needs to turn her volume down.
Someone needs to turn their volume down.

While their is technically incorrect (and 'his' is supposed to reflect gender-neutral in this situation, I believe), it seems to be becoming adopted as standard if not correct.

[Ksyrup]

How about proper use of the colon [insert trout in rectum joke here] and semi-colon?

Sadly, I see so many people misusing apostrophes that I think it's getting to the point where it just won't matter anymore. Pretty soon, anything with an 's' at the end with have one. I mean, when you see sentences like:

He always act's like it is my fault.

or

I'll talk to you guy's later.


We're getting close to a lost cause, I'm afraid.

[Maple Leafs]

I think the biggest reason for this is the lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun - given the choice:Exactly. I think everyone has become so worried about offending someone by using "his" or "her", and so annoyed at the clunky "his or her" option, that they just use "their" even though they know it's wrong. Hard to blame them, really.

[albionmoonlight]

I had a teacher who would take off if one started a sentence with "However."

So "I hate fish. Fritz, however, loves trout." is OK.

But "I hate fish. However, Fritz loves trout." is not OK.

He claimed that "however" derives from a Latin word which was never proper as the first word of a sentence and that English adopted that convention. Has anyone else heard of this "rule?" Most of the time it does not matter because however sounds better as the second word of the sentence anyway, but I still wonder how much validity there is to that being a "rule" of English grammer.

If it is a rule, then it is certainly one that people now ignore.

[Ksyrup]

I had a teacher who would take off if one started a sentence with "However."

So "I hate fish. Fritz, however, loves trout." is OK.

But "I hate fish. However, Fritz loves trout." is not OK.

He claimed that "however" derives from a Latin word which was never proper as the first word of a sentence and that English adopted that convention. Has anyone else heard of this "rule?" Most of the time it does not matter because however sounds better as the second word of the sentence anyway, but I still wonder how much validity there is to that being a "rule" of English grammer.

If it is a rule, then it is certainly one that people now ignore.
I had a professor who refused to allow anyone to start a sentence with 'and,' which I thought was assinine. It might be a rule, for all I know, but I think it can serve the same legitimate function as 'however,' 'but,' 'also,' etc.

[Maple Leafs]

Not a strict grammatical error, but I think the misuse of "hopefully" (such as in "Hopefully he won't be late") may also be a lost cause.

[QuikSand]

He claimed that "however" derives from a Latin word which was never proper as the first word of a sentence and that English adopted that convention. Has anyone else heard of this "rule?" Most of the time it does not matter because however sounds better as the second word of the sentence anyway, but I still wonder how much validity there is to that being a "rule" of English grammer.

I think he's technically correct, and I think you're correct in saying that the rule has slipped away in common use.

[QuikSand]

Not a strict grammatical error, but I think the misuse of "hopefully" (such as in "Hopefully he won't be late") may also be a lost cause.

Fantastic observation! *sigh*

[QuikSand]

misusing apostrophes...

I think this is a different case than most of these others, though.

Yes, the error is rampant, and seemingly unchecked. Certainly in a setting like this one.

But at least so far, nobody considers that error to be "acceptable" in any formal context. If you misuse apostrophes (or even the words its/it's) in a formal setting, you're properly labeled a dope by those who know better.

Let's just hope it stays that way.

[Bee]

Well, based on the technical report I got from one of my new engineers today...I'd say all rules of grammar are now viewed as only suggestions in technical writing.

[Ksyrup]

I think this is a different case than most of these others, though.

Yes, the error is rampant, and seemingly unchecked. Certainly in a setting like this one.

But at least so far, nobody considers that error to be "acceptable" in any formal context. If you misuse apostrophes (or even the words its/it's) in a formal setting, you're properly labeled a dope by those who know better.

Let's just hope it stays that way.
That's what I'm saying. In time, I see the lines blurred on this one. I've seen misused apostrophes in legal briefs and letters that just shouldn't happen. At this point though, you're correct, most readers of those documents would properly file that information away in terms of forming an observation/opinion about that person's abilities.

[GrantDawg]

Where exactly is the law books of grammar? Considering no two English books I have read agree exactly on what the rules are, I would really like to know.

[wheels]

I cast one vote for splitting infinitives when necessary to greatly improve sentence flow, to steadfastly avoid prolixity, to clarify meaning, to avoid sounding pedantic, or for any combination of these reasons.

The Oxford Dictionary of Modern American Usage has declared its independence from the don't-ever-split-infinitives rule, and it's about time.

Grammar rules help us communicate and help us understand the building blocks of language. This "rule" has done neither.

This "rule" is rooted in Latin. In Latin, and most other European languages, the infinitive is one word. For example, the Latin word "ire" (pronounced like e-ray) means "to go." To apply this to English, grammarians would say, "Treat 'to go' or any infinitive as a single word." That at first was just to help English speakers learn grammar easier. However, we can see where the logic led. If we treat "to go" as a single word, then it is "wrong" to insert a modifier between the two parts of the infinitive. By the middle of the 1700s one influential grammar reference was promoting this. Soon others followed. While it never became standardized--even the some of the best writers and speakers were known to consciously break this "rule"--many students learned not to split infinitives.

<O:p</O:pStrict grammarians set on not splitting any infinitives would rather write "He was a candidate likely generally to be accepted." Or "New principles will have boldly to be adopted if his case is to be made." Surely some splitting is required here.

<O:p</O:pBut an even more ignorant example is when people who don't know grammar try to "fix" sentences like this: "Her last wish was to be really understood." "To be really understood" is not a split infinitive at all; "really" merely separates the word "be" and a past participle.

<O:p</O:pHowever, I believe the who/whom distinction is very important. It clarifies the difference between using nominative (I, you, he, she, they, we, who and it) or objective (me, you, him, her, them, us, whom and it) case. Knowing if a word functions as a subject or object in a sentence is critical to understanding grammar and syntax. Once that distinction becomes blurred, students will have more difficulty parsing sentences or understanding the grammar of other Indo-European languages.

[korme]

The use of whom has gotten almost to the point of being archaic, it seems to me. I try to use it properly, but I find that it takes effort to do so (unlike most things grammatical, I don't have an "ear" for it). When it is used, even properly, I find that it gives off an air of pretentiousness (not usually intended, I'm sure). Certainly in speech, but even in a formal writing.
From surprisingly not having an ear for it, to feeling it gives a pretentiousness, that nails it for me to a tee.

[Passacaglia]

I think the biggest reason for this is the lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun - given the choice:

Someone needs to turn his volume down.
Someone needs to turn her volume down.
Someone needs to turn their volume down.

While their is technically incorrect (and 'his' is supposed to reflect gender-neutral in this situation, I believe), it seems to be becoming adopted as standard if not correct.

I was going to say what Celeval said, about using 'their' instead of 'his or her'. And I was going to mention starting a sentence with a conjunction.

[DukeRulesMAB]

I try to use whom correctly when I can. I try to get that/which correct, also, but it takes more effort.


Though I know it will irritate the strict grammar types, I'm going to agree with the above that someone/everyone .... their is OK now. Unlike the other examples above which have become common out of sloppiness more than anything else, this was more or less an intentional move of the language. Call it political correctness if you want, but using "his" or "her" for a gender neutral or mixed-gender group just seems awkward.

[DukeRulesMAB]

Dola...I'll add another one to the list.

Because/Since

I catch myself botching that one all the time.

[Raiders Army]

It bothers me when people excessively use "own" such as:

It was my own fault.

Why can't people just say It was my fault.???

[Glengoyne]

I am guilty of misusing who and whom, or rather not using whom.

I am somewhat less guilty of that and which, but only because I am really unclear on the "rule". I think the misuse of "myself" falls into this category as well. I am aware that proper usage is an issue, but it wasn't something that was pounded into my head.

I am forever splitting infinitives.

I occasionally start sentences with conjunctions, although it is almost always the word "but" instead of "and".

It also must be that the Political Correctness of the day has affected my usage of "their" instead of "his". It has reached the point where I think it would almost be discriminatory to use "his" as gender neutral.

[GrantDawg]

It also must be that the Political Correctness of the day has affected my usage of "their" instead of "his". It has reached the point where I think it would almost be discriminatory to use "his" as gender neutral.
What is becoming more and more common is the constant changing of the pronoun gender (swapping his or her). That is even more confusing. I think the use of "their" ought to be the new rule. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that writing ought to be more conversational, and that losening some grammar rules would make communication easier not more difficult (and no, I'm not talking about spelling rules :)).

[Huckleberry]

I am somewhat less guilty of that and which, but only because I am really unclear on the "rule". I think the misuse of "myself" falls into this category as well.

What are you unclear about as far as the word "myself" is concerned? Try changing the subject/object of the sentence from the first to second or third person. If "yourself" or "himself" sounds right, then you're fine. If saying "yourself" of "himself" sounds awful, then you've screwed the pooch.

Examples:

If you need help, you can contact myself. :mad:
If I need help, I can contact yourself. :mad:
If you need help, you can contact himself. :mad:

If he needs help, he can contact me. :D
If I need help, I can contact you. :D
If you need help, you can contact him. :D

etc. etc.

edit - link added: hxxp://www.lessontutor.com/eesReflexive.html

[Fonzie]

I would say that breaking your leg celebrating a field goal is particularly poor Gramatical mistake.

Get it? Get it?

[sabotai]

I would say that breaking your leg celebrating a field goal is particularly poor Gramatical mistake.

Get it? Get it?

BOOO!!

[sterlingice]

I couldn't even tell you the "that/which" rule at this point so I suppose I've conceded that one.

The "everyone gets their share" problem is an artifact of the English language's deficiency in lacking a gender-neutral singular pronoun referring to a person. I don't see that kind of grammar mistake going away in speech, and even in writing, trying to get around the problem is never elegant. I think we should start a movement to do that. "Everyone gets its share"! C'mon, everyone is now gender neutral!

I think the biggest reason for this is the lack of a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun - given the choice:

Someone needs to turn his volume down.
Someone needs to turn her volume down.
Someone needs to turn their volume down.

While their is technically incorrect (and 'his' is supposed to reflect gender-neutral in this situation, I believe), it seems to be becoming adopted as standard if not correct. To flip flop from the previous observation, I find myself just using "he"/"his" in these cases and ok with pissing people off. Historically that was the gender neutral pronoun so run with it. If someone insists on political correctness, I just assert that I'm an engineer so I don't know proper English and even if I did, I don't have time in my day to say "his and her" every time when we both know what I mean and the only harm is the offense of her (because guys will never argue this point) sensibilities.

I would say that breaking your leg celebrating a field goal is particularly poor Gramatical mistake.

Get it? Get it? May the Grammar God (Quik?) strike you dead for that pun.

SI

[QuikSand]

I couldn't even tell you the "that/which" rule at this point so I suppose I've conceded that one.

It's really not that hard. You get it right more than 99% of the time by following very simple and easy-to-recall rule:

Use which only if you would naturally put a comma before it.


So, this sentence is correct in both instances:

The dog that is barking, which belongs to Joe, is very loud.

[sterlingice]

It's really not that hard. You get it right more than 99% of the time by following very simple and easy-to-recall rule:

Use which only if you would naturally put a comma before it.


So, this sentence is correct in both instances:

The dog that is barking, which belongs to Joe, is very loud.
But if you used "that", there would be no comma?

The barking dog that belongs to Joe is very loud.

SI

[wheels]

It's really not that hard. You get it right more than 99% of the time by following very simple and easy-to-recall rule:

Use which only if you would naturally put a comma before it.


So, this sentence is correct in both instances:

The dog that is barking, which belongs to Joe, is very loud.
And you decide to place commas and use "which" with clauses that are non-restrictive (non-essential) to the meaning of the sentence. Clauses essential to the meaning of the sentence, in this case "that is barking," require "that," and no comma is necessary. Of course this sentence implies that there is more than one dog being discussed. If it's obvious what you mean when you say "the dog," then ", which is barking," would be used because you already know which dog is meant, and "which is barking" would be non-essential to the meaning.